Linux Foundation Comes Up With SecureBoot Plan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmidtbag

@gamerk2
Because PS3 is a gaming console (oh sorry, I mean "entertainment system") and Macs are technically PCs, even back when they used the PPC processors. As I was saying before, a device made for a specific purpose is a little different because you're not supposed to personalize it the way you want, you're supposed to use it for what it's advertised for.

---

Oh man, who is this who says to me that I am allowed to do with stuff I buy only what I am supposed to do? Does that happen in America or in USSR?

If you lend me a phone I can do with it what you suppose me to do with it. But if I buy a phone, I am really supposed to do with it what I want.


Edit: Someone tell me that he was just joking xD or that he was a patent troll from Sony xD

I think that if a company says that if you buy this product you are only allowed and supposed to use it as "advertised" then I think that I can say to them that when you take this monopoly money you are supposed to think and behave like it would be real money.

If your custom pc's bios (efi) doesn't allow you to switch off secure boot, this lets you install linux still.

There should be a juristic / political solution to it, not a technical. "Secure"Boot deserves to be purged with fire. If UEFI dies with it, fine.
It's a case for the antitrust division at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moilami

Oh man, who is this who says to me that I am allowed to do with stuff I buy only what I am supposed to do? Does that happen in America or in USSR?

If you lend me a phone I can do with it what you suppose me to do with it. But if I buy a phone, I am really supposed to do with it what I want.


Edit: Someone tell me that he was just joking xD or that he was a patent troll from Sony xD

I think that if a company says that if you buy this product you are only allowed and supposed to use it as "advertised" then I think that I can say to them that when you take this monopoly money you are supposed to think and behave like it would be real money.

---

Well, I said "not supposed to", which doens't mean you can't, and doens't exactly mean you shouldn't either. There's nothing communist about it either. That's like saying you buy a light bulb and say "well i'm going to make this clean the dishes" where if you can figure out how to do it, then fine, go ahead, but don't hate GE for stating that it wasn't designed to do that.

"The pre-bootloader will employ a “present user” test to ensure that it cannot be used as a vector for any type of UEFI malware"

Wait, so anything with "secure" boot can't be rebooted unattended?

Sounds like I'll be stuck building my own desktop machines again, if this garbage becomes standard on notebooks and tablets.

MS will probably revoke the Foundation's key, claiming that it allows bypassing "security" by loading unsigned boot loaders. MS has got the PC manufacturers by the balls, and no government is stepping in to sue their asses. Isn't it great?

I don't know what this hype is all about, if:

"The Linux Foundation will obtain a Microsoft Key and sign a small pre-bootloader which will, in turn, chain load (without any form of signature check) a predesignated boot loader which will, in turn, boot Linux (or any other operating system).
...
The current pre-bootloader is designed as an enabler only in that, by breaking the security verification chain at the actual bootloader, it provides no security enhancements over booting linux with UEFI secure boot turned off. "

And additionally Verisign or Microsoft will be forced to give away hidden door keys to the CIA. If I am a Mafia boss or spy who is in danger to get his device rootkitted I don't want these.

The only way would be to have my own key put into an opensource UEFI without hidden doors. And then signing my own key into my own kernels.

But this nonsense "secure" boot, why not simply turning off that shit ...

Is it just a marketing strategy to get closer?

All Microsoft-only computers should be rejected, and additional anti-monopoly lawsuits should be had. No one should be supporting Microsoft in any way whatsoever. Microsoft has nothing to do with my computer useage and are irrelevant to me.