Found on VirusTotal: The world’s first UEFI bootkit for Linux
arstechnica.com
“Bootkitty” is likely a proof-of-concept, but may portend working UEFI malware for Linux.

“Whether a proof of concept or not, Bootkitty marks an interesting move forward in the UEFI threat landscape, breaking the belief about modern UEFI bootkits being Windows-exclusive threats,” ESET researchers wrote. “Even though the current version from VirusTotal does not, at the moment, represent a real threat to the majority of Linux systems, it emphasizes the necessity of being prepared for potential future threats.”

  • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    0·
    29 days ago

    Unfortunately a lot of people in the Linux world still hate secure boot because they associate it with locking your PC to only running windows. Never mind the fact that basically every big Linux distro plays nicely with secure boot these days, and has for a while now.

    • Illecors@lemmy.cafeEnglish
      0·
      29 days ago

      Yea, I guess that initial total lack of understanding and big headlines has left a long-lasting scar. Admittedly, secure boot could be used to lock a machine down if the ability to turn it off and/or manage the keys yourself was removed.

      We’ll get there, eventually :)

    • Shdwdrgn@mander.xyzEnglish
      0·
      29 days ago

      I associate it with the fight I’ve had every single time I tried to use it. It’s never been a smooth process on any server I attempted to use it on. Usually I either run into problems with a system not wanting to properly boot the memory stick even with a full UEFI image flashed to it, or if I do get that to work I go through the whole installation process only to find the system unbootable for whatever reason. Eventually I just give up and do a standard installation because why should I have to work this hard to put an OS on a machine?

      • Illecors@lemmy.cafeEnglish
        0·
        29 days ago

        It is a system one has to understand fully, i.e. not like ssh, where you can understand connecting to a remote host without bothering about key pairs, x11 forwading, etc.

        I was lucky enough to have figured out Gentoo enough where plugging in secure boot was just extending my own system update script. Admittedly, I don’t know how much other distros fight back.

        • Shdwdrgn@mander.xyzEnglish
          0·
          29 days ago

          I’m on Debian, they’ve been providing UEFI images for a number of years so everything should “just work”. In fact I have one server where things did just work and that’s the only system using UEFI. Two other servers of the same model and BIOS version completely failed after numerous attempts so I finally said screw it and just did a normal install.

          • Illecors@lemmy.cafeEnglish
            0·
            29 days ago

            Do you know how that works? Is it something like Ubuntu where Canonical uses some sort of chain from Microsoft or do you have to embed the cert they provide into UEFI yourself?

            • Shdwdrgn@mander.xyzEnglish
              0·
              28 days ago

              Sorry, I really haven’t a clue. I just know once in awhile it does work, but usually it fails for me.

        • Shdwdrgn@mander.xyzEnglish
          0·
          29 days ago

          Shouldn’t this all be handled automatically by the Debian installer though? It seems weird that I would ever have to run other tools just to install a brand new system.

      • charade_you_are@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        0·
        29 days ago

        I actually had a system that wouldn’t initiate the video card because of secure boot and many other problems with over the years that I repaired them for a living. Left a very bad taste in my mouth but if it’s actually improving I’ll it again.

    • mox@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      0·
      29 days ago

      because they associate it with locking your PC to only running windows.

      They’re not exactly wrong. BIOS/UEFI bugs that make it a royal pain to use secure boot with anything but Windows are pretty common.

      • ftbd@feddit.orgEnglish
        0·
        29 days ago

        And many mainboards also suck in this regard. On mine, I can set secure boot mode to either ‘Windows OS’ (which means secure boot on) or ‘Other OS’ (which means secure boot is off). Took me a couple hours to figure that out

    • mlg@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      29 days ago

      The Fedora doc on this is a bit old but it’s still mostly the same:

      Secure boot activates a lock-down mode in the Linux kernel which disables various features kernel functionality:

      • Loading kernel modules that are not signed by a trusted key.
      • Using kexec to load an unsigned kernel image.
      • Hibernation and resume from hibernation.
      • User-space access to physical memory and I/O ports.
      • Module parameters that allow setting memory and I/O port addresses.
      • Writing to MSRs through /dev/cpu/*/msr.
      • Use of custom ACPI methods and tables.

      The implementation of secure boot is still questionable to this day, but it is understandable that it doesn’t always play nice with Linux. I do believe you can use hibernate now as long as you have an encrypted swap (LUKS).

      I can definitely see the pain if you happen to be a kernel dev or use linux on any SBC with IO ports you want to mess with in userspace and not make en entire overkill kernel module for.

    • TheFogan@programming.devEnglish
      0·
      29 days ago

      Never mind the fact that basically every big Linux distro plays nicely with secure boot these days, and has for a while now.

      In my experience nicely is still pretty relative. It still seems to be the most common area things go wrong on my installs and place I have the hardest time working around…

      and the bigger part, it’s a solution to a problem that I’ve never seen happen in the wild, and really can’t fathom happening on linux that doesn’t involve a very dumb user running software from an unknown source as root.