Giveaway of the Day Forums

1. 

   Anonymous
   Unregistered

   http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement

   Stand up for your freedom to install free software
   The following is a public statement, open for signing. For more background, please read our more detailed explanation of the issue at http://fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot.
   Microsoft has announced that if computer makers wish to distribute machines with the Windows 8 compatibility logo, they will have to implement a measure called "Secure Boot." However, it is currently up for grabs whether this technology will live up to its name, or will instead earn the name Restricted Boot.
   When done correctly, "Secure Boot" is designed to protect against malware by preventing computers from loading unauthorized binary programs when booting. In practice, this means that computers implementing it won't boot unauthorized operating systems -- including initially authorized systems that have been modified without being re-approved.
   However, we are concerned that Microsoft and hardware manufacturers will implement these boot restrictions in a way that will prevent users from booting anything other than Windows. In this case, we are better off calling the technology Restricted Boot, since such a requirement would be a disastrous restriction on computer users and not a security feature at all.

   http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/

   Microsoft has announced that if computer makers wish to distribute machines with the Windows 8 compatibility logo, they will have to implement a measure called "Secure Boot." However, it is currently up for grabs whether this technology will live up to its name, or will instead earn the name Restricted Boot.

   Posted 13 years ago #
2. 

   Anonymous
   Unregistered

   Hi Hotdoge3

   There's a lot of discussion at the moment whether secure boot will actually prevent installing Linux for instance in dual boot mode. This does seem very likely to be the case, as Microsoft regard any problem from Secure Boot to be the other OS's problem, not theirs, which to say the least is VERY disingenuous of Microsoft. Read more about Microsoft's stance HERE

   I would so far infer Microsoft's stance as way less than encouraging . . .

   I would urge every forum reader to sign the petition at the fsf.org's link in hotdoge3's post. It's very quick to sign, just remember to click the confirmation email.

   I think Microsoft HAVE to consider the legal implications of any restriction on Open Source software, as litigation and massive damages against Microsoft could very easily occur. The EEC has already brought Microsoft severely to task for restrictive practices.

   I certainly would NOT buy a Win 8 computer if it prevented/precluded me from choosing to install Linux as well as/alongside/instead of Windows.

   Posted 13 years ago #
3. 

   Anonymous
   Unregistered

   Microsoft are obviously looking at Apple computers where the hardware forces running the Mac OS, but are ignoring the fact that mainstream PC computers have always been able to run Open Source OS's. I think personally that hardware manufacturers will think twice or thrice, before implementing such a restriction on PCs, and potentially badly damaging sales..

   The simple answer is NOT to run Win 8 EVER!, as things stand at present!

   Posted 13 years ago #
4. 

   Anonymous
   Unregistered

   http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/windows-8-certification-will-make-it-difficult-or-impossible-to-install-linux-on-pcs/14987?tag=nl.e539

   There are also implications when it comes to upgrading:

   The end user is not guaranteed that their system will include the signing keys that would be required for them to swap their graphics card for one from another vendor, or replace their network card and still be able to netboot, or install a newer SATA controller and have it recognise their hard drive in the firmware. The end user is no longer in control of their PC.

   Has Microsoft found the perfect way to make it difficult for people to install Linux (and older versions of Windows) on new PCs?

   Posted 13 years ago #
5. 

   Anonymous
   Unregistered

   Bye-Bye Microsoft! :)

   Posted 13 years ago #
6. 

   Anonymous
   Unregistered

   http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/microsoft-isnt-the-enemy-when-it-comes-to-blocking-linux-on-windows-8-pcs/15634?tag=nl.e539

   http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/windows-8-certification-will-make-it-difficult-or-impossible-to-install-linux-on-pcs/14987

   http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-dont-blame-us-if-windows-8s-secure-boot-requirement-blocks-linux-dual-boot/10781

   Update (September 26): Red Hat employee Matthew Garrett — whose post last week kicked off the whole Windows 8 UEFI controversy, has posted a two-part response to Microsoft’s latest post on this topic. It ends with:
   “Microsoft’s rebuttal is entirely factually accurate. But it’s also misleading. The truth is that Microsoft’s move removes control from the end user and places it in the hands of Microsoft and the hardware vendors. The truth is that it makes it more difficult to run anything other than Windows. The truth is that UEFI secure boot is a valuable and worthwhile feature that Microsoft are misusing to gain tighter control over the market. And the truth is that Microsoft haven’t even attempted to argue otherwise.”
   Update No. 2: It looks like some Australian Linux users are agitating for possible antitrust-focused legal actions over the coming UEFI secure boot changes.

   http://www.zdnet.com.au/linux-users-threaten-microsoft-with-accc-339323063.htm

   Linux users threaten Microsoft with ACCC
   Plans to enable a secure boot on Windows 8 machines have drawn the ire of Linux Australia's membership, and have the Linux Australia Council itself considering a campaign against Microsoft.
   Microsoft revealed plans recently that would require all alternative operating systems to carry Microsoft security keys to be compatib
   This would make it impossible to install alternative operating systems like Linux, or even older versions of Windows, if the OEM doesn't bundle the secure keys with new OS releases and the hardware vendor doesn't enable the secure-boot feature to be switched off.
   Members of Linux Australia are looking to petition the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), claiming that Microsoft's behaviour is anti-competitive.
   Microsoft has already responded to community uproar that Linux could be blocked, saying that it isn't seeking to lock out other OEMs, but merely to secure the system from malicious pre-boot processes.

   http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/09/22/protecting-the-pre-os-environment-with-uefi.aspx

   Existing boot processes: BIOS > Any OS loader code > OS Start
   Figure 2 - Legacy BIOS boot path
   Windows 8 addresses this vulnerability with UEFI secure boot, and using policy present in firmware along with certificates to ensure that only properly signed and authenticated components are allowed to execute.
   Secured boot win Windows 8: Native UEFI 2.3.1 > Verified OS loader only > OS Start
   Figure 3 - Secure boot path with UEFI
   A demonstration of this control is found in the Samsung tablet with Windows 8 Developer Preview that was offered to //BUILD/ participants. In the screenshot below you will notice that we designed the firmware to allow the customer to disable secure boot.
   http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Worth-Reading-ROP-protection-in-Windows-8-bypassed-1368992.html
   Worth Reading: ROP protection in Windows 8 bypassed
   Windows Flag Windows 8 offers a range of new protection mechanisms that are designed to hamper the efforts of exploit authors. However, shortly after the release of the Windows 8 Developer Preview, a way to circumvent one of these new obstacles has already been found.

   http://blog.bkis.com/en/rop-chain-for-windows-8/

   (Return Oriented Programming) on Windows 8 and the way to bypass it.

   http://vulnfactory.org/blog/2011/09/21/defeating-windows-8-rop-mitigation/

   It's Bugs All the Way Down.
   Defeating Windows 8 ROP Mitigation

   Posted 13 years ago #
7. 

   davee
   Member

   I'm not taking sides, but for another perspective on this issue, see

   http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/leading-pc-makers-confirm-no-windows-8-plot-to-lock-out-linux/4185?tag=nl.e539

   Posted 13 years ago #
8. 

   BuBBy
   Teh adnim

   Thanks davee, I was just about to post the same link.

   It seems some people should realise it is not only Microsoft who can play at propaganda games.

   Posted 13 years ago #
9. 

   davee
   Member

   @BuBBY

   You're welcome. I don't know how it is in the rest of the world, but we Americans love our conspiracy theories!

   Posted 13 years ago #
10. 

    Anonymous
    Unregistered

    It's all very well for Microsoft to say it's up to PC manufacturers to implement workarounds eg via BIOS settings, but many people are likely to buy a Win 8 PC or especially a Win 8 laptop without knowing the manufacturers position on this, nor knowing if they might wish to install Linux in the future, and a lot of people might well end up very peeved over the issue if they subsequently find they can't use Linux.

    Many of us like the convenience of dual boot, without having to go into the BIOS every time we wish to switch between Windows and Linux.

    The fact that standard PC replacement components such as HDs, graphics cards etc might prevent a PC booting into Win 8, without a very lengthy wait to phone Microsoft and then having to argue the case with Microsoft for an OS bought in the first place from Microsoft is lamentable.

    I 'hear' what Microsoft 'say' about PC security, but I have to say in my opinion that Microsoft may well have a deliberate hidden agenda to hit Linux in its tracks as a matter of 'convenience' for and by Microsoft under the guise of 'securing' PCs.

    Securing Microsoft's OS against any others seems a far more likely position by Microsoft. Do we need secure boot at all in the first place? Most PC compromises happen when the OS is up and running, and there is very good and cheap or free software to detect and prevent rootkits, without using hardware tactics.

    I'm also very concerned over the issue of an OS distributor wanting hardware control over a PC. If I buy a PC or laptop or notebook, it's MY COMPUTER not Microsoft's! Perhaps the change from 'my computer' to 'computer' is targeted to become 'Microsoft's computer' at Microsoft's whim. I think not on this one!

    Secure boot seems far more likely to lock legitimate users out of their computer or doing what they want with a PC THEY own! NOT Microsoft!

    Posted 13 years ago #
11. 

    ChrisS
    Administrator

    It seems to me that Microsoft and the OEM vendors didn't learn anything from the colossal fail of Vista. I'm sure you recall the OS that wanted you to buy all new hardware that might or might not work? But until Chazzo's comment I couldn't figure out why the vendors seemed so eager to implement the scheme. But imagine it's 2014 and you need a new video card... your choices are to buy an Nvidia card from Newegg that might cost you days in getting your system to boot, or buy the same card, certified to be secure boot ready, from Dell. Which card do you think will cost more?

    As Chazzo points out, the "Secure Boot" is a rather extreme measure to combat a very, very minor problem unless there are other motivating factors. Such as the OEM venders wanting to move into the lucrative after-market with over-priced goods. Compare the costs of buying a hard drive from Dell, HP, Acer with those found on Amazon or Newegg, or just compare the cost differential between PC and Apple components and think of the profit potential that "Secure Boot" enables. And it's a perfect story... you can't blame Microsoft as the vendors implemented the scheme and you can't blame the vendors because Microsoft required it. Whatever else "Secure Boot" may be, it's anti-consumer and you can look forward to the OEM computers costing as much as an Apple.

    Posted 13 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.