swtpm VS sbctl

Or you can just add a virtual tpm device in virt-manager while setting up the vm using swtpm. It seems to ha e packages on most major distro's.

If you want Windows 11 instead for whatever reason, swtpm can emulate a TPM chip for QEMU to use.

You can find the source of software TPM implementations which abide to the official spec such as: https://github.com/stefanberger/swtpm but that has no real bearings on the TPM used on real hardware

I install swtpm and in virt-manager add a TPM 2.0 emulated device and set the secure boot image before I install. This seems to work well enough.

I don't know either, but apparently Microsoft didn't guarantee that 'unsupported' systems would continue to receive system updates. I just use a QEMU VM and swtpm.

swtpm - a software Trusted Platform Module emulator and the ways of using it;

Seems there are two such projects for that:

https://github.com/stefanberger/swtpm

This should work: https://github.com/stefanberger/swtpm/wiki

Linux has several TPM emulators. This one is probably the most popular. But here's another for TPM 1.2 only. The main use-case is to emulate TPMs for use with Virtual Machine guests.

Other GitHub posts from previous versions seem to have the issue described here but maybe I missed something, https://github.com/stefanberger/swtpm/issues/572 I'm on an arch install and just installed it from pacman.

No, this isn't true nor correct.

Secure Boot and TPM do offer tangible security benefits and is security features you can take ownership of.

Secure Boot allows your own key hierarchy, and TPM allows you to take ownership.

The linked boot disk isn't really proof that Secure Boot is useless. If you don't set a MOKManager password (as you should), and you change the security state of the machine while present at the keyboard. Yes you can boot things.

This is intended to make sure people can actually decide to trust things. And having insecure defaults makes this less useful. Not very surprising.

TPMs could also prevent attacks like this on your machine.

Incidentally I've invested quite a bit of time in making user-friendly Secure Boot tooling as well. https://github.com/Foxboron/sbctl

No problem! The sbctl package ships with a pretty extensive hook out of the box (https://github.com/Foxboron/sbctl/blob/master/contrib/pacman/ZZ-sbctl.hook). It's been very reliable for automatically resigning .efi executables after updates for me.

sbctl verify returns failed to find EFI system partition despite it definitely is there. It's the same issue as this but remounting or restarting doesn't fix it.

lol

Must actually prevent unsigned images from booting

sudo dnf install asciidoc golang -y VERSION=0.11 cd /tmp curl -L "https://github.com/Foxboron/sbctl/releases/download/${VERSION}/sbctl-${VERSION}.tar.gz" | tar zxvf - cd "sbctl-${VERSION}" make sudo make install cd ~

By far the easiest is to use sbctl to generate, install and use keys to sign your efi images. You can use mkinitcpio to build the unified kernels automatically and a pacman trigger to rerun the sbctl signing when the kernel is updated. Pretty straightforward (once you've done it once).

The question is whether you have any UEFI drivers or not. If they're in the ESP you can just look there to check, but UEFI drivers can also be loaded from PCI cards or baked in the firmware itself.

If you're using a TPM for Secure Boot, you can use the command in https://github.com/Foxboron/sbctl/wiki/FAQ#option-rom to know for sure.