ikidd@lemmy.world to Linux@lemmy.mlEnglish · edit-23 days agoMicrosoft Proposes "Hornet" Security Module For The Linux Kernellore.kernel.orgexternal-linkmessage-square41fedilinkarrow-up189arrow-down17file-text
arrow-up182arrow-down1external-linkMicrosoft Proposes "Hornet" Security Module For The Linux Kernellore.kernel.orgikidd@lemmy.world to Linux@lemmy.mlEnglish · edit-23 days agomessage-square41fedilinkfile-text
minus-squareozymandias117@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up11·2 days agoIf the executable binary has to be signed with a key, similar to the module signing key, Microsoft could sign their binaries This, along with secureboot, would prevent the owner of the machine from running eBPF programs Microsoft doesn’t want you to run, even with root
minus-squareMagiilaro@feddit.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up8·2 days agoYeah, that’s why I am against Microsoft Keys on my systems
minus-squareMagiilaro@feddit.orglinkfedilinkarrow-up7·2 days agoI fail to see the positive side of that…
minus-squarelumony@lemmings.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·2 days agoOdds are because there isn’t one. Abusers will always try to justify their abuse by saying their victims “don’t understand” why it’s “necessary.”
minus-squareozymandias117@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·2 days agoI wasn’t trying to give a positive side, I was just explaining why Microsoft wants the feature
If the executable binary has to be signed with a key, similar to the module signing key, Microsoft could sign their binaries
This, along with secureboot, would prevent the owner of the machine from running eBPF programs Microsoft doesn’t want you to run, even with root
Yeah, that’s why I am against Microsoft Keys on my systems
I fail to see the positive side of that…
Odds are because there isn’t one.
Abusers will always try to justify their abuse by saying their victims “don’t understand” why it’s “necessary.”
I wasn’t trying to give a positive side, I was just explaining why Microsoft wants the feature