Secure Boot

dos2unix

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 3, 2019
Messages
3,531
Reaction score
3,295
Credits
31,576
It seems most major distro's support Secure Boot these days. Arch is a noteable exception.

The official installation image does not support Secure Boot (FS#53864). Secure Boot support was initially added in archlinux-2013.07.01-dual.iso and later removed in archlinux-2016.06.01-dual.iso. At that time prebootloader was replaced with efitools, even though the latter uses unsigned EFI binaries. There has been no support for Secure Boot in the official installation medium ever since.




Interesting the non-vendor points of view. I see Mint has a community forum, but interestingly enough, no real formal documentation.






It also appears that MX Linux does not support secure boot.

However Parrot Linux does.

A quick search gives mixed results with PuppyLinux, but it seems it does not. Again, no real documentation on it, mostly forum discussions.

Kali Linux also does not like secure boot.
In the UEFI settings, ensure that Secure Boot is disabled. The Kali Linux kernel is not signed and will not be recognized by Secure Boot.
 
Last edited:


Most of those names coincide with the distros used in the professional enterprise sector. Being able to support secure boot, in that sector, is going to be pretty much mandatory (or so I'd assume). While I've been retired for a while, I don't think that's much of an assumption.

It's a fuzzy memory but I want to say that RHEL also does secure boot by default, during the installation process.

A quick look shows that they even have directions for setting it up after installation, if I'm reading it properly.

 
One thing I have learned going through this little exercise. Which distro's have pretty good documentation/wiki pages, and which distro's don't. If seems the only support from some distro' are the community forums more or less. No official documentation for some I was sure were more well documented.
 
Which distro's have pretty good documentation/wiki pages, and which distro's don't.
distro without docs is like code without comments, you can stare at code or distro for days and still not being able to figure out what it does or how it works.

lack of docs (or comments in code) is so bad it's better to just walk away and save some nerves on frustration.
 
Which distro's have pretty good documentation/wiki pages, and which distro's don't.

I suspect that those too will mostly coincide with commercial/professional offerings, though the Arch wiki would be an exception.
 


Members online


Top