this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2025
34 points (100.0% liked)
Cybersecurity
6100 readers
263 users here now
c/cybersecurity is a community centered on the cybersecurity and information security profession. You can come here to discuss news, post something interesting, or just chat with others.
THE RULES
Instance Rules
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- No Ads / Spamming.
- No pornography.
Community Rules
- Idk, keep it semi-professional?
- Nothing illegal. We're all ethical here.
- Rules will be added/redefined as necessary.
If you ask someone to hack your "friends" socials you're just going to get banned so don't do that.
Learn about hacking
Other security-related communities [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Notable mention to [email protected]
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If I'm understanding this correctly, it's the mere existence of reloader.efi and the fact that Microsoft signed it that's the problem.
So Microsoft are just signing anything even if it breaks UEFI security? And presumably, now that this file is out there, it can be used to subvert SecureBoot on any system that hasn't had its UEFI blacklist updated?
Oh great, Microsoft, good job.
Pretty much every Secure Boot device trusts Microsoft by default, which is why I think it's pretty much useless (in its default state anyway).