Windows 8 secure boot spells trouble for Linux

mjg59 | UEFI secure booting

Time will tell if this spells troubles for Linux or it will backfire on MS.
Start buying hardware from companies that support Linux.
System76 is one I know...

 

I'm having a hard time believing that they wouldn't create a work around for Linux.

I can't imagine the backlash if you couldn't boot Linux also.

 

I also think the problem is a bit exagerated.
Secure boot is not a new ideea. IF you fully implement secore boot under UEFI, then one can disable secure boot and boot Linux. After that you enable it and you can boot Windows which only starts in secure mode and with correct key(s). The thing is - these OEM sweat shops might implement UEFI half-way ("el cheapo version") and not provide the switch between secure (enabled by default) and non-secure. We will probably have to be aware of what we buy even more so than today.

 

How does this benefit the consumer? ... ... ... Anyone? ... ... ...

 

Probably not much in the long run. Look at the drm ...

 

Its a croc o sh*!.

Grr it angers me to think that they would do that.

 

1% loss of consumers (according to the only statistics that are out there - knowing how flawed they are)? I doubt any vendor would care.
Remember, we're talking about desktop/laptop computers here. Of course, servers is a totally different story but I don't intend to put a rack in my flat.

Who said it benefits the consumer (except for the PR bods)?

Secure boot will come and it will come as locked as MS can make it without losing any lawsuits. $1 discount for every OEM license in return for a truly secure MS boot can be very tempting if you're a computer vendor.

 

Here is the most inetresting part of the article:
"Firstly, we'd need a non-GPL bootloader. Grub 2 is released under the GPLv3, which explicitly requires that we provide the signing keys. Grub is under GPLv2 which lacks the explicit requirement for keys, but it could be argued that the requirement for the scripts used to control compilation includes that. It's a grey area, and exploiting it would be a pretty good show of bad faith."
MS will use their philosophy " my users allow me to lock down the platform while your free people won't allow you - you're screwed" (you = open source)
We got to a point where people accept a corporation taking away freedom in the name of the "greater" good - security. Yeah, right.
Look at DRM mess. Is that what's next for software? Yuuuck!

 

It will be able to be turned on and off. Just it will need to be in the on state to have the win 8 sticker on.

 

Wny is Microsoft fault again?

 

One could argue it isn't.
UEFI is not a M$ invention. I also doubt M$ is the first company to come up with a secure boot.
It's just a bad ideea - like DRM. And it might hurt Linux in the process.
"Closing" some piece of hardware that we buy is not nice.
IF it ends up being a BIOS switch - ON for M$ and OFF for Linux - no problem - dual boot won't be as easy as before but that's still manageable.
On the other hand it the lazy OEMs (the likely, cheap approach) will come up with just "ON" for the secure boot and no switch...
My 2c.

 

The same way patchguard did ie: drastically reducing the number of rootkit infections on 64bit Windows.

Anyways, Windows 8 developer has a section in gpedit.msc for secureboot right now and you can turn it on/off. I don't know what that means because my machine doesn't support it but MS has already come out and said they won't be locking you out of Linux.

ChromeOS has secureboot. You can turn it off and install Linux or Windows or whatever you like.

 

We could use LILO. It's under BSDL.
Apart from that I don't want a non-GPL bootloader just for the sake of loading proprietary blobs to circumvent the hoops that some manufacturer wants me to jump through to boot my Free OS.
I will not buy any hardware that would force me to do that.

 

Neither will I.

 

OP linked a blog post from September; this isn't exactly news, as we have covered this in other threads.

Here's a whitepaper from the Linux Foundation:

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/making-uefi-secure-boot-work-with-open-platforms

 

My bad then - I didn't know. This thread should be closed then (or merged with the other one).

 

It's alright, there was some discussion in a couple of other threads and the one with most of the posts got closed because of arguing/flamebait.

So let's try to keep it to informed discussion and not knee-jerk reactions.

 

Secure Boot is a stupid idea.
Malware will eventually find its way around it while the only person it locks up are the users.
You can never protect idi0ts from themselves. And you should never do that at the expense of handicapping power users it is unfair.

 

Microsoft always up to no good

 

Linux Foundation: Secure Boot Need Not Be a Problem | PCWorld Business Center

 

You really couldn't be more wrong. Security companies were crying about PatchGuard too and it has drastically reduced the number of rootkit infections on 64bit Windows systems.

Yeah, Malware will make use of exploits. Grats, you've realized that no security solution is perfect. That's why you layer it on. You're on linux, don't know you about apparmor and selinux? Do you think those are infallible? They have vulnerabilties just like Patchguard and secureboot will.

It's been said for months that this won't lock linux users out though. MS came out and said this.

 

MS said they LEAVE it to OEMs to implement the lock.
And you think they make their decisions based on the welfare of users or the sound of money?
Do you know that Windows 7 license is BIOS tagged, what if the genuine state is tied to enabled secure boot state only?
So everytime you want to boot Windows you have to enable back secure boot or it won't be genuine? How do you like the sound of that.
The full implementation is uncertain so I will not accept any pacifying statements until a demo is out.

 

Do you somehow believe that the two are mutually exclusive?

It sounds a whole lot like baseless suspicions that directly contradict what MS has already said about the feature.

 

/thread. There is no conspiracy, as much as the persecution-complexed Linux nerds (jeez, man up) may like to believe otherwise.

 

1.
That's not even a question. Money - that's all that matters. Of course next quarter's results are most important so they (OEMs) will implement whatever is cheap.
And if you ever thought M$ gives a rat's aaarse about their customers - think about Vista (or other M$ abortions)
People got used to buying junk. Sad but true.
2.
M$ is a honest corporation looking out for their customers.
No evil - 90% of the desktop market is not a monopoly. Not in US.
Enough said.

 

lmao is that a real post

 

This thread is closed. Too bad an informed discussion didn't happen.