All the .efi/kernel/drivers are not modified. And, unless you're going to stand behind every single Ventoy user to explain why you think it shouldn't matter that Ventoy will let any unsigned bootloader through, that's just not going to fly. Boots, but cannot find root device. The user has Ubuntu, Fedora and OpenSUSE ISOs which they want to load. Then congratulations: You have completely removed any benefits of using Secure Boot for any person who enrolled Ventoy on their Secure Boot computer. I would say that it probably makes sense to first see what LoadImage()/StarImage() let through in an SB enabled environment (provided that this is what Ventoy/GRUB uses behind the scenes, which I'm not too sure about), and then decide if it's worth/possible to let users choose to run unsigned bootloaders. It typically has the same name, but you can rename it to something else should you choose to do so. You can't just convert things to an ISO and expect them to be bootable! Linux distributives use Shim loader, each distro with it's own embedded certificate unique for each distro. 4. Ventoy is open-source software that allows users to create ISO, WIM, IMG, VHS(x), and EFI files onto a bootable USB drive. a media that was created without using Ventoy) running in a Secure Boot environment, so if your point is that because Ventoy uses a means to inject content that Microsoft has chosen not to secure, it makes the whole point of checking Secure Boot useless, then that reasoning logically also applies to official unmodified retail Windows ISOs, because you might as well tell everyone who created a Windows installation media (using the MCT for instance): "There's really no point in having Secure Boot enabled on your system, since someone can just create a Windows media with a malicious Windows\System32\winpeshl.exe payload to compromise your system at early boottime anyway" Again, if someone has Secure Boot enabled, and did not whitelist a third party UEFI bootloader themselves, then they will expect the system to warn them in that third party bootloader fails Secure Boot validation, regardless of whether they did enrol a bootloader that chain loaded that third party bootloader. For instance, if you download a Windows or Linux ISO, you sure want to find out if someone altered the official bootloader, that was put there by the people who created the ISO, because it might tell you if something was maliciously inserted there. Would MS sign boot code which can change memory/inject user files, write sectors, etc.? This ISO file doesn't change the secure boot policy. Ubuntu has shim which load only Ubuntu, etc. If you do not see a massive security problem with that, and especially if you are happy to enrol the current version of Ventoy for Secure Boot, without realizing that it actually defeats the whole point of Secure Boot because it can then be used to bypass Secure Boot altogether, then I will suggest that you spend some time reading into trust chains. I see your point, this CorePlus ISO is indeed missing that EFI file. it doesn't support Bluetooth and doesn't have nvidia's proprietary drivers but it's very easy to install. Already on GitHub? Already on GitHub? @pbatard, have you tested it? Nevertheless, thanks for the explanation, it cleared up some things for me around the threat model of Secure Boot. Thank you both for your replies. DiskGenius
Some commands in Ventoy grub can modify the contents of the ISO and must be disabled for users to use on their own under secure boot. So use ctrl+w before selecting the ISO. For example, GRUB 2 is licensed under GPLv3 and will not be signed. As I understand, you only tested via UEFI, right? Is it possible to make a UEFI bootable arch USB? However, per point 12 of the link I posted above, requirements for becoming a SHIM provider are a lot more stringent than for just getting a bootloader signed by Microsoft, though I'm kind of hoping that storing EV credentials on a FIPS 140-2 security key such as a Yubico might be enough to meet them. VMware or VirtualBox) https://abf.openmandriva.org/platforms/cooker/products/4/product_build_lists/3250 @steve6375 I guess this is a classic error 45, huh? and that is really the culmination of a process that I started almost one year ago. Although a .efi file with valid signature is not equivalent to a trusted system. debes activar modo uefi en el bios Once here, scroll down and move to the "Download Windows 11 Disk Image (ISO) for x64 devices" section. Boot net installer and install Debian. Getting the same error with Arch Linux. It woks only with fallback graphic mode. In other words it will make their system behave as if Secure Boot is disabled, which they are unlikely to expect, else they would have disabled Secure Boot altogether to boot said media (which, if they control that system they can always easily do, especially if it's in a temporary fashion to boot a specific media that they know isn't Secure Boot compliant). my pleasure and gladly happen :) Try updating it and see if that fixes the issue. Menu Option-->Secure Boot Support for Ventoy2Disk.exe and -s option for Ventoy2Disk.sh It's a pain in the ass to do yes, but I wouldn't qualify it as very hard. But when I try to boot it with ventoy it does not boot and says the message "No bootfile found for UEFI". Edit: Disabling Secure Boot didn't help. 5. extservice
But, even as I don't actually support the idea that Secure Boot is useless if someone has physical access to the device (that was mostly Steve positing this as a means to justify that not being able to detect Secure Boot breaches on USB media isn't that big a deal), I do believe there currently still exist a bit too many ways to ensure that you can compromise a machine, if you have access to said machine. Besides, I'm considering that: Posts: 15 Threads: 4 Joined: Apr 2020 Reputation: 0 0 Therefore, Ventoy/Grub should be altered as follows: Hopefully this shouldn't be too complex to add, though it may require some research, and modifying GRUB to do just that might require a lot of work. When user whitelist Venoy that means they trust Ventoy (e.g. Well occasionally send you account related emails. privacy statement. Maybe the image does not support X64 UEFI." UEFI64 Bootfile \EFI\Boot\bootx64.efi is present. Do NOT put the file to the 32MB VTOYEFI partition. Haven't tried installing it on bare metal, but it does install to a VM with the LabConfig bypasses. If you pull the USB drive out immediately after finish copy a big ISO file, most probably the file in the USB will be corrupted. ParagonMounter
Ventoy Binary Notes: This website is underprovisioned, so please download ventoy in the follows: (remember to check the SHA-256 hash) https://github.com/ventoy/Ventoy/releases Source Code Ventoy's source code is maintained on both Github and Gitee. puedes poner cualquier imagen en 32 o 64 bits You signed in with another tab or window. This means current is 32bit UEFI mode. You can put the iso file any where of the first partition. That doesn't mean that it cannot validate the booloaders that are being chainloaded. Tested ISO: https://github.com/rescuezilla/rescuezilla/releases/download/2.4/rescuezilla-2.4-64bit.jammy.iso. Shim itself is signed with Microsoft key. Currently, on x64 systems, Ventoy is able to run when Secure Boot is enabled, through the use of MokManager to enroll the certificate with which Ventoy's EFI executable is signed. Yes, anybody can make a UEFI bootloader that chain loads unsigned bootloaders with the express purpose of defeating Secure Boot. And, for any of this to work, Ventoy would still need to independently solve the problem of allowing unsigned bootloaders pass through when Secure Boot is enabled @ventoy @ValdikSS Thanks, I will test it as soon as possible. So it is pointless for Ventoy to only boot Secure EFI files once the user has 'whitelisted' it. Many thanks! BIOS Mode Both Partition Style GPT Disk . Windows 11 21h2 x64 Hebrew - Successfully tested on UFEI. snallinux-.6-x86_64.iso - 1.40 GB Astra Linux , supports UEFI , booting successfully. It means that the secure boot solution doesn't work with your machine, so you need to turn off the option, and disable secure boot in the BIOS. 1.0.84 UEFI www.ventoy.net ===>
When it asks Delete the key (s), select Yes. This could be due to corrupt files or their PC being unable to support secure boot. 7. It also happens when running Ventoy in QEMU. *far hugh* -> Covid-19 *bg*. Now, if Microsoft finally relinquished their abusive policy about not accepting GPLv3 code for Secure Boot signing and Ventoy was updated not to allow unsigned bootloaders when Secure Boot is enabled (i.e. puedes usar las particiones gpt o mbr. If you look at UEFI firmware settings, you will usually see that CSM and Secure Boot cannot be enabled at the same time, for this precise reason. Add firmware packages to the firmware directory. same here on ThinkPad x13 as for @rderooy The main annoyance in my view is that it requires 2 points of contact for security updates (per https://github.com/rhboot/shim-review) and that I have some doubts that Microsoft will allow anything but a formal organization with more than a couple of people to become a SHIM provider. By clicking Sign up for GitHub, you agree to our terms of service and Does the iso boot from s VM as a virtual DVD? https://abf.openmandriva.org/product_build_lists. Ventoy loads Linux kernels directly, which are also signed with embedded Shim certificate (not with the certificate trusted by EFI DB). Try updating it and see if that fixes the issue. I can confirm it was the reason for some ISOs to not boot (ChimeraOS, Manjaro Gnome). for grub modules, maybe I can pack all the modules into one grub.efi and for other efi files(e.g. @adrian15, could you tell us your progress on this? Probably you didn't delete the file completely but to the recycle bin. Ventoy Version 1.0.78 What about latest release Yes. How did you get it to be listed by Ventoy? Users enabled Secure Boot to be warned if a boot loader fails Secure Boot validation, regardless of where that bootloader is executed from. I have absolutely no problem with letting the user choose if they want to run a bootloader that failed Secure Boot validation, and I think this might be the better way to do it indeed. The MX21_February_x64.iso seems OK in VirtualBox for me. That's not at all how I see it (and from what I read above also not @ventoy sees it). It's the job of Ventoy's custom GRUB to ensure that what is being chainloaded is Secure Boot compliant because that's what users will expect from a trustworthy boot application in a Secure Boot environment. Have a question about this project? Yes, Ventoy does work within UEFI mode and offers a default secure boot feature. Ventoy2Disk.exe always failed to update ? For instance, someone could produce a Windows installation ISO that contains a malicious /efi/boot/bootx64.efi, and, currently, Ventoy will happily boot that ISO even if Secure Boot is enabled. Remove the Windows 7 installation CD/DVD from the disc tray, type exit in Command Prompt and press Enter. If the secure boot is enabled in the BIOS, the following screen should be displayed when boot Ventoy at thte first time. Extra Ventoy hotkey features: F1 or 1 - load the payoad file into memory first (useful for some small DOS and Linx ISOs). Delete or rename the \EFI folder on the VTOYEFI partition 2 of the Ventoy drive. We talk about secure boot, not secure system. Of course , Added. Most likely it was caused by the lack of USB 3.0 driver in the ISO. unsigned kernel still can not be booted. But of course, it's your choice to pick what you think is best for your users and the above is just one opinion on the matter. Then I can directly add them to the tested iso list on Ventoy website. @adrian15, could you tell us your progress on this? The user should be notified when booting an unsigned efi file. How to make sure that only valid .efi file can be loaded. It supports x86 Legacy BIOSx86 Legacy BIOS,x86_64 UEFIx86_64 UEFI, ARM64 UEFI, IA32 UEFI and MIPS64EL UEFI. The BIOS decides to boot Ventoy in Legacy BIOS mode or in UEFI mode. My guesd is it does not. Unable to boot properly. This iso seems to have some problem with UEFI. If the ISO file name is too long to displayed completely. 1. I still don't know why it shouldn't work even if it's complex. I didn't try install using it though. @chromer030 hello. They can't eliminate them totally, but they can provide an additional level of protection. So, Ventoy can also adopt that driver and support secure boot officially. Currently when boot the ISO file failed as a Virtual CDROM, Ventoy will try to parse the grub configuration file inside the ISO file and try to boot it direclty with. It is designed to protect a system against malicious code being loaded and executed early in the boot process, before the operating system has been loaded. slitaz-next-180716.iso, Symantec.Ghost.Boot.CD.12.0.0.10658.x64.iso, regular-xfce-latest-x86_64.iso - 1.22 GB FreeBSD 13.1-RELEASE Aarch64 fails to boot saying "No bootfile found for UEFI!". Again, I think it is very fair to say that, if you use use Ventoy on a Secure Boot enabled system, and you went through Ventoy Secure Boot enrolment, they you expect that ISOs that aren't Secure Boot compliant will be reported, as they would with other means of using them on that system. You can use these commands to format it:
I think it's ok as long as they don't break the secure boot policy. It was actually quite the struggle to get to that stage (expensive too!) fdisk: Create a primary partition with partition type EFI (FAT-12/16/32). Boots, but unable to find its own files; specifically, does not find boot device and waits user input to find its root device. By the way, this issue could be closed, couldn't it? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community. I have the same error, I can boot from the same usb, the same iso file and the same Ventoy on asus vivobook but not on asus ROG. Attached Files Thumbnail (s) Find Reply Steve2926 Senior Member Strelec WinPE) Ctrl+r for ventoy debug mode Ctrl+h or h for help m checksum a file This means current is MIPS64EL UEFI mode. I've tested it with Microsoft-signed binaries, custom-signed binaries, ubuntu ISO file (which chainloads own shim grub signed with Canonical key) all work fine. Thanks! @pbatard, if that's what what your concern, that could be easily fixed by deleting grubia32.efi and grubx64.efi in /EFI/BOOT, and renaming grubia32_real.efi grubia32.efi, grubx64_real.efi grubx64.efi. So, this is debatable. The file formats that Ventoy supports include ISO, WIM, IMG, VHD(x), EFI files. maybe that's changed, or perhaps if there's a setting somewhere to Google for how to make an iso uefi bootable for more info. Please follow the guid bellow. Thanks. In a real use case, when you have several Linux distros (not all of which have Secure Boot support), several unsigned UEFI utilities, it's just easier to temporary disable Secure Boot with SUISBD method. lo importante es conocer las diferencias entre uefi y bios y tambien entre gpt y mbr. @ventoy If you use Rufus to write the same ISO file to the same USB stick and boot in your computer. If you burn the image to a CD, and use a USB CD drive, I bet you find it will install fine. Ventoy is supporting almost all of Arch-based Distros well. only ventoy give error "No bootfile found for UEFI! I have this same problem. Ventoy is able to chain boot Windows 10 (build 2004) just fine on the same systems. I think it's OK. Will polish and publish the code later. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that, if you have a Secure Boot capable system, then firmware manufacturers might add a condition that you can only use TPM-based encryption if you also have Secure Boot enabled, as this can help reduce attack vectors against the TPM (by preventing execution of arbitrary code at the early UEFI boot stage, which may make poking around the TPM easier if it has a vulnerability). I've been trying to do something I've done a milliion times before: This has always worked for me. For example, Ventoy can be modified to somehow chainload full chain of distros shim grub kernel, or custom validation functions could be made, which would, for example, validate and accept files signed with certificates in DB + a set of custom certificates (like ones embedded in distros' Shims), or even validate and automatically extract Shims embedded certificates and override EFI validation functions (as it's done currently to completely disable validation), but is this kind of complexity worth it for a USB boot utility which is implemented to be simple and convenient? And they can boot well when secure boot is enabled, because they use bootmgr.efi directly from Windows iso. If you really want to mount it, you can use the experimental option VTOY_LINUX_REMOUNT in Global Control Plugin. Format XFS in Linux: sudo mkfs -t xfs /dev/sdb1, It may be related to the motherboard USB 2.0/3.0 port. Code that is subject to such a license that has already been signed might have that signature revoked. But, UEFI:NTFS is not a SHIM and that's actually the reason why it could be signed by Microsoft (once I switched the bootloader license from GPLv3+ to GPLv2+ and rewrote a UEFI driver derived from GPLv2+ code, which I am definitely not happy at all about), because, in a Secure Boot enabled environment, it can not be used to chain load anything that isn't itself Secure Boot signed. Thus, being able to check that an installer or boot loader wasn't tampered with is not a "nice bonus" but is something that must be enforced always in a Secure Boot enabled environment, regardless of the type of media you are booting from, because Secure Boot is very much designed to help users ensure that, when they install an OS, and provided that OS has a chain of trust that extends all the way, any alteration of any of the binary code that the OS executes, be it as part of the installation or when the OS is running, will be detected and reported to the user and prevent the altered binary code to run. Minor one: when you try to start unsigned .efi executable, error message is shown for a very brief time and quickly disappears. That's because, if they did want to boot non Secure Boot enabled ones, they would disable Secure Boot themselves. If Secure Boot is not enabled, proceed as normal. Is there any solution for this? and reboot.pro.. and to tinybit specially :) always used Archive Manager to do this and have never had an issue. Please thoroughly test the archive and give your feedback, what works and what don't. Will it boot fine? da1: quirks=0x2
Saddleback College Mlt Program,
Alexandria, Mn Homes For Sale By Owner,
Monsoon Drink Recipe Port Of Call,
Century Funeral Home Clarksdale, Ms Obituaries,
Homes For Sale By Owner Asheville, Nc,
Articles V