Code signing & signed kernels.

Do singed kernels are more secure than unsinged? Or do they give a real or false fealing of security ? Or are "loaders" taking over.
Just like position independent code i feel signing kernels does not much inprove security.
(To write a virus I would use javascript in a pdf file and then hide in the Recycler.bin of an NTFS filesystem.)
 
Kernels are signed now? I fail to understand your question, there's only one FreeBSD kernel.

Ah, offtopic forum. Not talking about Linux again I guess? ;)
 
So I return to freebsd.
There is periodic, there is a check for files with setuid and a mail to root.
pkg check -sa
Is this worth-full or not ?
 
¿Do you mean secure boot?


On my PCs I disable it, I remember it being controversial when it was introduced in Windows but never bothered to read more about it.
 
The BIOS in my HP PC thinks I only use Windows. :)
I don't even want to upgrade the BIOS because then I need to first install Windows , upgrade the BIOS, change video cards, configure bios, and then change video cards back. It's a form of vendor-lock-in. By making stuff complicated. I use legacy-boot.
 
The BIOS in my HP PC thinks I only use Windows. :)
I don't even want to upgrade the BIOS because then I need to first install Windows , upgrade the BIOS, change video cards, configure bios, and then change video cards back. It's a form of vendor-lock-in. By making stuff complicated. I use legacy-boot.
I have encountered several HP computers that do not play well with FreeBSD UEFI boot. It is better to stay with legacy BIOS boot and to not worry about secure boot on them.
 
Back
Top