Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Linux Foundation Comes Up With SecureBoot Plan

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schmidtbag View Post

    @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.
    Last edited by moilami; 10-11-2012 at 01:07 PM. Reason: Trolling.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,195

    Default

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

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    in front of my box :p
    Posts
    811

    Default

    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.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,398

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moilami View Post
    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.
    Last edited by schmidtbag; 10-11-2012 at 04:36 PM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    12

    Default

    "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.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,799

    Default

    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?

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    56

    Default Howto really secure boot?

    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?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    565

    Default

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •