Your version requires everyone to have two computers if they want protection. It also requires every user to generate a key and store it on the other computer. It also means that they have to regenerate their signature every time they update the kernel or bootloader, and to do that they have to connect it to the other computer. It's user-hostile and unworkable.Quote:
The difference is that my "version" does not require you to "surrender" to me or be executed.
Don't take this as an absolute endorsement of Microsoft's approach. I'd prefer that a neutral third party be in charge of handling signatures. But nobody's been willing to spend the millions of dollars that would be required for that to happen, and so it hasn't.
They are playing around with trust games, where they themselves trust only in own closed cycle society, but require others to trust them.
This will never work, unless they lie and FUD.
They just GPL the whole codebase and gain instant trust from everyone, that includes all cryptomechanisms.
Then, they just sell copies with one-slot serial. I think ID invented it with Quake3....
Still... they will go bankrupt in next 5 years. Because they exist only due to monopoly which will stop existing once they GPL the system.
Because in this system only the top contributor gets money, not the top brawler.
I will address whole three quotes seperately and then as one whole, because they line up forming a proof.
No one will risk own extinction.
No one will deactivate SecureBoot. At least, in living form on the market.
You can't replace keys. Consider this crude code example:
if (microsoft_certified == true) goto work;
if (microsoft_certified == false)
printf("Freedom..Choice...Fairness... You replace keys here...");
// (obfuscated code here)
I'm going to play devils advocate for a second.
Microscam software is too full of holes to protect itself from bootloaders. I understand that this is their solution and it's a great one (as long as it can be turned off via bios or jumper).
On another note I think anyone who uses Windows is basically asking for problems like this. It has a large user base so is targeted more often. I would say the average user is less than computer savvy.
It's far too easy to run something bad or have it hid in something that looks like a mp3. Too easy to compromise with out of the box configurations or too expensive to pay the virus scanner or spyware fees.
Oh and hunt for your driver's scam sites come up first in google! Yup some system they got, they need to do this, it's their only hope!
Side note Linux users have to be careful, i use su instead of sudo because you never know who will try to do what on your computer when your back is turned!
One option is to not allow anything else to be installed, and never let your OS be in a position to have the bootloader changed.
If you do want to allow system-level changes, or something like dual-boots, or even other OSes, you need a way to make sure only "good" operating systems and programs can make those changes.
Another way to look at it is, how can you make sure the user is in control of the dual-booting, if it's possible for the user to not even be aware they are dual-booting/something has changed?
Lot of HP, Lenovo, and other manufactures boards doesn't load linux disabling or not, doesn't matter if signed or not.
This just doesn't work. There is something more than Security boot.
In the top 10 vulnerabilities, there is not a single MS product to be found- it's dominated by Java & Flash (which are cross-platform).
(If you'd like to see the source article, it's here (at the bottom): http://www.securelist.com/en/analysi...lution_Q3_2012
The Microsoft of today is not the Microsoft that put out Windows XP, and sometimes, the attackers are just so far ahead of you, there's nothing you can do (see Flame & Duqu).