I don't understand how I could use a signed Linux system to "attack Windows" when Windows isn't running?
More importantly, doesn't the GPL require that you provide sufficient source to reconstruct the binary artefacts that constitute the program? (We now proceed to argue about what constitutes a "program" that isn't executable code). Either I can modify the kernel (in which case I don't understand the point of this signature chaining being _required_) or I can't (in which case it's a GPL violation to distribute it).
I may also be confused about how mandatory all this is.
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-05-31 06:24 am (UTC)More importantly, doesn't the GPL require that you provide sufficient source to reconstruct the binary artefacts that constitute the program? (We now proceed to argue about what constitutes a "program" that isn't executable code). Either I can modify the kernel (in which case I don't understand the point of this signature chaining being _required_) or I can't (in which case it's a GPL violation to distribute it).
I may also be confused about how mandatory all this is.