Re: You're not making much sense

Date: 2018-04-06 07:49 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] mjg59
so why do you need another kernel with lockdown disabled by default to be shipped?

If you have the patch that sets default lockdown policy based on secure boot state, you don't. If you don't have that patch, you do.

Why would an attacker not force that kernel to be booted when he gets control over the machine?

Because it wouldn't be signed.

Having a command line parameter to disable lockdown would make it obvious both in the journald logs or in /proc/cmdline.

Both of which could be compromised after an attacker adds the option and livepatches the kernel.
Identity URL: 
Account name:
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.


If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at

Notice: This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.


Matthew Garrett

About Matthew

Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Google. Ex-biologist. @mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer.

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags