V4 is legacy version. Because if I know you ever used Ventoy in a Secure Boot enabled environment, I can now run any malicious payload I want at the UEFI level, on your computer. As with pretty much any other security solution, the point of Secure Boot is mitigation ("If you have enabled Secure Boot then it means you want to be notified about bootloaders that do not match the signatures you allow") and right now, Ventoy results in a complete bypass of this mitigation, which is why I raised this matter. 4. If that is not the case already, I would also strongly urge everyone to consider the problem not as "People who want Secure Boot should perform extra steps to ensure that only signed executable will boot" but instead as "People who don't care about Secure Boot but have it enabled should either disable Secure Boot or perform extra steps if they want unsigned executables to boot". This same image I boot regularly on VMware UEFI. While Ventoy is designed to boot in with secure boot enabled, if your computer does not support the secure boot feature, then an error will result. I think it's ok as long as they don't break the secure boot policy. 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 No bootfile found for UEFI! Issue #313 ventoy/Ventoy GitHub If it fails to do that, then you have created a major security problem, no matter how you look at it. Shim itself is signed with Microsoft key. When it asks Delete the key (s), select Yes. The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: Please give the exact iso file name. You signed in with another tab or window. This means current is UEFI mode. 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 will give more clear warning message for unsigned efi file when secure boot is enabled. Error description I downloaded filename Win10_21H2_BrazilianPortuguese_x64.iso I have the same error with EndeavorOS_Atlantis_neo_21_5.iso using ventoy 1.0.70. the EndeavorOS iso boots with no issues when on it's on usb, but not through ventoy. I guess this is a classic error 45, huh? All of these security things are there to mitigate risks. 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. Do I still need to display a warning message? Anything Debian-based fails to boot for me across two computers and several versions of Ventoy. Error message: Win10UEFI WinPE10_8_Sergei_Strelec_x86_x64_2019.12.28_English.iso BOOT but Custom launcher cannot open custom path and unable access to special apps. For more information on how to download and install Ventoy on Windows 10/11, we have a guide for that. Only in 2019 the signature validation was enforced. Oooh, ok, I read up a bit on how PCR registers work during boot, and now it makes much more sense. Error : @FadeMind EDIT: Is Ventoy checking md5sums and refusing to load an iso that doesn't match or something? Yes, anybody can make a UEFI bootloader that chain loads unsigned bootloaders with the express purpose of defeating Secure Boot. So all Ventoy's behavior doesn't change the secure boot policy. The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: I believe GRUB (at least v2.04 and previous versions if patched with Fedora patches) already work exactly as you've described. Not associated with Microsoft. Do I still need to display a warning message? I can guarantee you that if you explain the current situation to the vast majority of Ventoy users who enrolled it in a Secure Boot environment, they will tell you that this is not what they expected at all and that what they want, once enrolled, is for Ventoy to only let through UEFI boot loaders that can be validated for Secure Boot and produce the expected Secure Boot warning for the ones that don't. @ValdikSS, I'm not seeing much being debated, when the link you point to appears to indicate that pretty much everybody is in agreement that loading unsigned kernels from GRUB, in a Secure Boot environment, is a bug (hence why it was reported as such). Is there any progress about secure boot support? 2There are two methods: Enroll Key and Enroll Hash, use whichever one. your point) and you also want them to actually do their designated job, including letting you know, if you have Secure Boot enabled, when some third party UEFI boot loader didn't pass Secure Boot validation, even if that boot loader will only ever be run from someone who has to have physical access to your computer in the first place. And I will posit that if someone sees it differently, or tries to justify the current behaviour of Ventoy, of letting any untrusted bootloaders pass through when Secure Boot is enabled, they don't understand trust chains, whereas this is pretty much the base of any computer security these days. If your PC is unable to process Ventoy as bootable media, then you may need to disable secure boot. First and foremost, disable legacy boot (AKA BIOS emulation). Ventoy is supporting almost all of Arch-based Distros well. In WIMBOOT mode (ctrl+w) I get 'Loading files. xx%' and then screen resolution changes and get nice Windows Setup GUI. Some questions about using KLV-Airedale - Page 9 - Puppy Linux Already on GitHub? Thank you for your suggestions! Legacy? (This post was last modified: 08-06-2022, 10:49 PM by, (This post was last modified: 08-08-2022, 01:23 PM by, (This post was last modified: 08-08-2022, 05:52 PM by, https://forums.ventoy.net/showthread.phpt=minitool, https://rmprepusb.blogspot.com/2018/11/art-to.html. I would also like to point out that I reported the issue as a general remark to help with Ventoy development, after looking at the manner in which Ventoy was addressing the Secure Boot problem (and finding an issue there), rather than as an actual Ventoy user. The fact that it's also able to check if a signed USB installer wasn't tampered with is just a nice bonus. They can choose to run a signed Ubuntu EFI file and Ventoy can change it's default function using scripts and file injection. Maybe I can provide 2 options for the user in the install program or by plugin. So it is pointless for Ventoy to only boot Secure EFI files once the user has 'whitelisted' it. It should be specially noted that, no matter USB drive or local disk, all the data will be lost after install Ventoy, please be very careful. By default, the ISO partition can not be mounted after boot Linux (will show device busy when you mount). Then Ventoy will load without issue if the secure boot is enabled in the BIOS. Already on GitHub? Agreed. This iso seems to have some problem with UEFI. Yes. "No bootfile found for UEFI! unsigned .efi file still can not be chainloaded. It gets to the root@archiso ~ # prompt just fine using first boot option. You can put the iso file any where of the first partition. Happy to be proven wrong, I learned quite a bit from your messages. @steve6375 Any progress towards proper secure boot support without using mokmanager? 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. I made Super UEFIinSecureBoot Disk with that exact purpose: to bypass Secure Boot validation policy. If everything is fine, I'll prepare the repo, prettify the code and write detailed compilation and usage instructions, as well as help @ventoy with integration. if it's possible please add UEFI support for this great distro. Have a question about this project? Ventoy doesn't load the kernel directly inside the ISO file(e.g. 1.0.84 MIPS www.ventoy.net ===> @shasheene of Rescuezilla knows about the problem and they are investigating. Please follow the guid bellow. Do I need a custom shim protocol? Fedora-Security-Live-x86_64-Rawhide-20200526.n.0 - 1.95 GB, guix-system-install-1.1.0.x86_64-linux.iso - 550 MB, ipfire-2.25.x86_64-full-core143.iso - 280 MB, SpringdaleLinux-8.1-x86_64-netinst.iso - 580 MB, Acronis.True.Image.2020.v24.6.1.25700.Boot.CD.iso - 690 MB, O-O.BlueCon.Admin.17.0.7024.WinPE.iso - 480 MB, adelie-live-x86_64-1.0-rc1-20200202.iso - 140 MB, fhclive-USB-2019.02_kernel-4.4.178_amd64.iso - 450 MB, MiniTool.Partition.Wizard.Technician.WinPE.11.5.iso - 390 MB, AOMEI.Backupper.Technician.Plus.5.6.0_UEFI.iso - 380 MB, O-O.DiskImage.Professional.14.0.321.WinPE.iso - 380 MB, EaseUS.Data.Recovery.Wizard.WinPE.13.2.iso - 390 MB, Active.Boot.Disk.15.0.6.x64.WinPE.iso - 400 MB, Active.Data.Studio.15.0.0.Boot.Disk.x64.iso - 550 MB, EASEUS.Partition.Master.13.5.Technician.Edition.WinPE.x64.iso - 500 MB, Macrium_Reflect_Workstation_PE_v7.2.4797.iso - 280 MB, Paragon.Hard.Disk.Manager.Advanced.17.13.1.x64.WinPE.iso - 400 MB, Passware.Kit.Forensic.2017.1.1.Win.10-64bit.BootCD.iso - 350 MB, orel-2.12.22-26.12.2019_13.14.livecd.iso - 1.1 GB, rocksolid-signage-release-installer-1.13.4-1.iso - 1.3 GB, manjaro-kde-20.0-rc3-200422-linux56.iso - 3 GB, OpenStage-2020.03-xfce4-x86_64.iso - 1.70 GB, resilientlinux-installer-amd64-2.2.iso - 2.20 GB, virage-beowulf-3.0-x86-64-UEFI-20191110_1146.iso - 1.30 GB, BlackWeb-Unleashed.19.11-amd64.hybrid.iso - 3 GB, yunohost-stretch-3.6.4.6-amd64-stable.iso - 400 MB, OpenMandrivaLx.4.2-snapshot-plasma.x86_64.iso - 2.10 GB By clicking Sign up for GitHub, you agree to our terms of service and So the new ISO file can be booted fine in a secure boot enviroment. The worst part is, at the NSA level, this is peanuts to implement, and it certainly doesn't require teams of coders or mathematicians trying to figure out a flaw or vulnerability. ventoy maybe the image does not support x64 uefi @MFlisar Hiren's Boot CD was down with UEFI (legacy still has some problem), manjaro-kde-20.0-rc3-200422-linux56.iso BOOT Yes, at this point you have the same exact image as I have. 4 Ways to Fix Ventoy if It's Not Working [Booting Issues] Fix them with this tool: If the advices above haven't solved your issue, your PC may experience deeper Windows problems. puedes poner cualquier imagen en 32 o 64 bits Hiren does not have this so the tools will not work. And of course, people expect that if they run UEFIinSecureBoot or similar software, whose goal is explicitly stated as such, it will effectively remove Secure Boot. its existence because of the context of the error message. MEMZ.img is 4K and Ventoy does not list it in it's menu system. using the direct ISO download method on MS website. 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. The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: tails-amd64-4.5.iso Legacy tested with VM Turned out archlinux-2021.06.01-x86_64 is not compatible. It also happens when running Ventoy in QEMU. In the install program Ventoy2Disk.exe. Nevertheless, thanks for the explanation, it cleared up some things for me around the threat model of Secure Boot. Will there be any? Google for how to make an iso uefi bootable for more info. Shims and other Secure Boot signed chain loaders do not remove the feature of warning about boot loaders that have not been signed (by either MS or the Shim holders). VMware or VirtualBox) I didn't try install using it though. Sign in Even debian is problematic with this laptop. But when I try to boot it with ventoy it does not boot and says the message "No bootfile found for UEFI". privacy statement. In Linux, you need to specify the device to install Ventoy which can be a USB drive or local disk. Ventoy can detect GRUB inside ISO file, parse its configuration file and load its boot elements directly, with "linux" GRUB kernel loading command. Then I can directly add them to the tested iso list on Ventoy website. Interestingly enough, the ISO does contain the efi files as I made sure to convert the whole IMG, which on the other hand is the basis for the creation of a memtest flash drive. I was just objecting to your claim that Secure Boot is useless when someone has physical access to the device, which I don't think is true, as it is still (afaik) required for TPM-based encryption to work correctly. I've already disabled secure boot. You are receiving this because you commented. Windows 7 UEFI64 Install - Easy2Boot Yes, I finally managed to get UEFI:NTFS Secure Boot signed 2 days ago, and that's part of why there's a new release of Rufus today, that includes the signed version of UEFI:NTFS. I didn't expect this folder to be an issue. due to UEFI setup password in a corporate laptop which the user don't know. Ubuntu.iso). Adding an efi boot file to the directory does not make an iso uefi-bootable. When the user select option 1. Ventoy also supports BIOS Legacy. Does the iso boot from a VM as a virtual DVD? lo importante es conocer las diferencias entre uefi y bios y tambien entre gpt y mbr. When you run into problem when booting an image file, please make sure that the file is not corrupted. Tested on 1.0.57 and 1.0.79. orel-2.12.22-26.12.2019_13.14.livecd.iso - 1.1 GB https://nyancat.fandom.com/wiki/MEMZ_Nyan_Cat This means current is Legacy BIOS mode. About Fuzzy Screen When Booting Window/WinPE, Ventoy2Disk.exe can't enumerate my USB device. However, Ventoy can be affected by anti-virus software and protection programs. I don't know why. In that case there's no difference in booting from USB or plugging in a SATA or NVMe drive with the same content as you'd put on USB (and we can debate about intrusion detection if you want).
Superbad Home Ec Teacher Actor, Madison Area Technical College Act Requirements, Bnha Time Travel Fic Recs, How To Leave An Edpuzzle Class As A Student, Articles V