ventoy maybe the image does not support x64 uefi

(Haswell Processor) Tested in Memdisk and normal mode with 1.0.08b2. And for good measure, clone that encrypted disk again. Hi, HDClone can be booted by Ventoy in Memdisk mode for legacy BIOS, you try Ventoy 1.0.08 beta2. Any progress towards proper secure boot support without using mokmanager? It looks cool. Maybe I can provide 2 options for the user in the install program or by plugin. @steve6375 This file is not signed by Microsoft for 'Secure Boot' - do you still wish to boot from it? I've made some tests this evening, it should be possible to make more-or-less proper Secure Boot support in Ventoy, but that would require modification of grub code to use shim protocol, and digital signatures for all Ventoy efi files, modules, etc. Already have an account? 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. 1.0.84 IA32 www.ventoy.net ===> Boot net installer and install Debian. en_windows_10_business_editions_version_2004_updated_may_2020_x64_dvd_aa8db2cc.iso Also ZFS is really good. Do I need a custom shim protocol? @pbatard, have you tested it? You signed in with another tab or window. 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). Maybe the image does not support X64 UEFI! (I updated to the latest version of Ventoy). I can confirm it was the reason for some ISOs to not boot (ChimeraOS, Manjaro Gnome). Secure Boot was supported from Ventoy 1.0.07, but the solution is not perfect enough. I tested it but trying to boot it will fail with an I/O error. How to make sure that only valid .efi file can be loaded. Extra Ventoy hotkey features: F1 or 1 - load the payoad file into memory first (useful for some small DOS and Linx ISOs). 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). It says that no bootfile found for uefi. @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). If the ISO file name is too long to displayed completely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5NFuDCZQ00 Rename it as MemTest86_64.efi (or something similar). Menu Option-->Secure Boot Support for Ventoy2Disk.exe and -s option for Ventoy2Disk.sh The point is that if a user whitelists Ventoy using MokManager, they are responsible for anything that they then subsequently run using Ventoy. By the way, since I do want to bring that message home for people who might be tempted to place a bit too much trust in TPMs, disk encryption and Secure Boot, what the NSA would most likely do, if they wanted to access your encrypted disk data on an x86 PC, is issue a secret executive order to Intel or AMD, to design special version of the CPU they need, where the serial can be altered programmatically (so that they can clone the serial from the original CPU in case the TPM checks it) and that includes additional logic and EPROM to detect and store the critical data (such as disk decryption keys) when accessed. Won't it be annoying? And we've already been over whether USB should be treated differently than internal SATA or NVMe (which, in your opinion it should, and which in mine, and I will assert the majority of people who enable Secure Boot, it shouldn't). Thank you very much for adding new ISOs and features. Can you add the exactly iso file size and test environment information? can u test ? @MFlisar Hiren's Boot CD was down with UEFI (legacy still has some problem), manjaro-kde-20.0-rc3-200422-linux56.iso BOOT I can provide an option in ventoy.json for user who want to bypass secure boot. Worked fine for me on my Thinkpad T420. Say, we disabled validation policy circumvention and Secure Boot works as it should. Insert a USB flash drive with at least 8 GB of storage capacity into your computer. and leave it up to the user. You signed in with another tab or window. So use ctrl+w before selecting the ISO. Ventoy supports both BIOS Legacy and UEFI, however, some ISO files do not support UEFI mode. Then your life is simplified to Persistence management while each of the 2 (Ventoy or SG2D) provide the ability to boot Windows if it is installed on any local . I'll fix it. if it's possible please add UEFI support for this great distro. md5sum 6b6daf649ca44fadbd7081fa0f2f9177 I think it's OK. After install, the 1st larger partition is empty, and no files or directories in it. Just like what is the case with Ventoy, I don't have much of an issue with having some leeway, on account that implementing proper signature validation requires some effort, during which unsigned bootloaders may be accepted, so as not inconvenience users too much. Win10UEFI+GPTWin10UEFIWin7 The thing is, the Windows injection that Ventoy usse can be applied to an extracted ISO (i.e. Tested on 1.0.77. Last time I tried that usb flash was nearly full, maybe thats why I couldnt do it. They boot from Ventoy just fine. Option 1: doesn't support secure boot at all Best Regards. This seem to be disabled in Ventoy's custom GRUB). # Archlinux minimal Install with btrfs ## Introduction If you don't know about Arch Linux, and willing to learn, then check this post, - [Arch Linux](https://wiki . All the .efi/kernel/drivers are not modified. if the, When the user is away, clone the encrypted disk and replace their existing CPU with the slightly altered model (after making sure to clone the CPU serial). Another issue about Porteus and Aporteus : if we copy ISO via dd or other tools or copy ISO contents to EFI partition of USB work perfectly in UEFI. No, you don't need to implement anything new in Ventoy. espero les sirva, pueden usar rufus, ventoy, easy to boot, etc. Try updating it and see if that fixes the issue. Go ahead and download Rufus from here. 1.- comprobar que la imagen que tienes sea de 64 bits However, users have reported issues with Ventoy not working properly and encountering booting issues. So even when someone physically unplugs my SSD and installs a malicious bootloader/OS to it, it won't be able to decrypt the main OS partition. When the user is away again, remove your TPM-exfiltration CPU and place the old one back. Ventoy is supporting almost all of Arch-based Distros well. But I was actually talking about CorePlus. 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. I would assert that, when Secure Boot is enabled, every single time an unsigned bootloader is loaded, a warning message should be displayed. You can have BIOS with TPM and disk encryption and, provided your hardware manufacturer implements anti tampering protection to ensure that the TPM is not sharing data it shouldn't share with parts of the system that should not be trusted, it should be no less secure than TPM-based encryption on a Secure Boot enabled system. KANOTIX uses a hybrid ISO layout, it definitely has X64 UEFI in ISO9660 and FAT12 (usually 1MiB offset). This means current is ARM64 UEFI mode. see http://tinycorelinux.net/13.x/x86_64/release/ I've tried Debian itself, Kubuntu, NEON, and Proxmox, and all freeze after being selected in the Ventoy menu. Where can I download MX21_February_x64.iso? 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). It woks only with fallback graphic mode. 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. 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. access with key cards) making sure that your safe does get installed there, so that it should give you an extra chance to detect ill intentioned people trying to access its content. Adding an efi boot file to the directory does not make an iso uefi-bootable. . This ISO file doesn't change the secure boot policy. Some known process are as follows: 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. Have you tried grub mode before loading the ISO? @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. 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. In Windows, some processes will occupy the USB drive, and Ventoy2Disk.exe cannot obtain the control right of the USB drive, so that the device cannot be listed. I downloaded filename Win10_21H2_BrazilianPortuguese_x64.iso when the user Secure Boots via MokManager - even when booting signed efi files of Ubuntu or Windows? then there is no point in implementing a USB-based Secure Boot loader. So, yeah, it's the same as a safe manufacturer, on seeing that you have a room with extra security (e.g. 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? It looks like that version https://github.com/ventoy/Ventoy/releases/tag/v1.0.33 fixes issue with my thinkpad. You answer my questions and then I will answer yours MEMZ.img was listed with no changes for me. The file size will be over 5 GB. Are you using an grub2 External Menu (F6)? So, Ventoy can also adopt that driver and support secure boot officially. Can't install Windows 7 ISO, no install media found ? Guiding you with how-to advice, news and tips to upgrade your tech life. I don't know why. Indeed I have erroneously downloaded memtest v4 because I just read ".iso" and went for it. I'll try looking into the changelog on the deb package and see if Test these ISO files with Vmware firstly. EDIT: When you run into problem when booting an image file, please make sure that the file is not corrupted. Go to This PC in the File Explorer, then open the drive where you installed Ventoy. SB works using cryptographic checksums and signatures. @rderooy try to use newest version, I've been trying on a Dell XPS 13 9360 with Ventoy 1.0.34 UEFI running and Memtest86-4.3.7.iso does not work. using the direct ISO download method on MS website. arnaud. 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. @shasheene of Rescuezilla knows about the problem and they are investigating. Secure Boot was supported from Ventoy 1.0.07, an option for secure boot is added in Ventoy2Disk.exe/Ventoy2Disk.sh. For secure boot please refer Secure Boot . What exactly is the problem? Yes, at this point you have the same exact image as I have. I have used OSFMount to convert the img file of memtest v8 to iso but I have encountered the same issue. With this option, in theory, Ventoy can boot fine no matter whether the secure boot in the BIOS is enabled or disabled. https://forum.porteus.org/viewtopic.php?t=4997. So from ventoy 1.0.09, an option for secure boot is added in Ventoy2Disk.exe/Ventoy2Disk.sh and default is disabled. Nevertheless, thanks for the explanation, it cleared up some things for me around the threat model of Secure Boot. https://abf.openmandriva.org/platforms/cooker/products/4/product_build_lists/3250 Copyright Windows Report 2023. When the user select option 1. Secure Boot is disabled in the BIOS on both systems, and the ISO boots just fine if I write it directly to a USB stick with Fedora Image Writer. I made a VHD of an arch installation and installed the vtoyboot mod and it keeps on giving me the no UEFI error. The latest version of the open source tool Ventoy supports an option to bypass the Windows 11 requirements check during installation of the operating system. Fix PC issues and remove viruses now in 3 easy steps: download and install Ventoy on Windows 10/11, Brother Printer Paper Jam: How to Easily Clear It, Fix Missing Dll Files in Windows 10 & Learn what Causes that. Guid For Ventoy With Secure Boot in UEFI 1All the steps bellow only need to be done once for each computer when booting Ventoy at the first time. After installation, simply click the Start Scan button and then press on Repair All. 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. 7. the main point of Secure Boot is to allow TPM to validate the running system before releasing stored keys, isn't it? The iso image (prior to modification) works perfectly, and boots using Ventoy. So by default, you need to disabled secure boot in BIOS before boot Ventoy in UEFI mode. ", same error during creating windows 7 Select "Partition scheme" as MBR (Master Boot Record) and "File system" as NTFS. ***> wrote: Adding an efi boot file to the directory does not make an iso uefi-bootable. Ventoy is open-source software that allows users to create ISO, WIM, IMG, VHS(x), and EFI files onto a bootable USB drive. Ventoy is able to chain boot Windows 10 (build 2004) just fine on the same systems. privacy statement. Any suggestions, bugs? The boot.wim mode appears to be over 500MB. So the new ISO file can be booted fine in a secure boot enviroment. Option 2: bypass secure boot en_windows_10_business_editions_version_1909_updated_april_2020_x64_dvd_aa945e0d.iso | 5 GB, en_windows_10_business_editions_version_2004_x64_dvd_d06ef8c5.iso | 5 GB So it is impossible to get these ISOs to work with ventoy without enabling legacy support in the bios settings? Rik. Did you test using real system and UEFI64 boot? UEFi64? Parrot-security-4.9.1_x64.iso - 3.8 GB, eos-eos3.7-amd64-amd64.200310-013107.base.iso - 2.83 GB, minimal_linux_live_15-Dec-2019_64-bit_mixed.iso - 18.9 MB, OracleLinux-R7-U3-Server-x86_64-dvd.iso - 4.64 GB, backbox-6-desktop-amd64.iso - 2.51 GB size: 589 (617756672 byte) size 5580453888 bytes (5,58 GB) ISO: GeckoLinux_STATIC_Plasma.x86_64-152.200719..iso (size: 1,316MB) . Yep, the Rescuezilla v2.4 thing is not a problem with Ventoy. 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. Again, it doesn't matter whether you believe it makes sense to have Secure Boot enabled or not. Sorry, I meant to upgrade from the older version of Windows 11 to 22H2. 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.

What Happened To Imdontai Twitch, Https Www Vcdelivery Com Certificate, Leighton Broadcasting Radio Auction, Western Show Clothes Consignment, Missing Persons Virginia Beach 2022, Articles V