Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: LF: There's Less Concern About ARM UEFI SecureBoot

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,092

    Default LF: There's Less Concern About ARM UEFI SecureBoot

    Phoronix: LF: There's Less Concern About ARM UEFI SecureBoot

    James Bottomley wrote a new blog post this morning about why the Linux Foundation really isn't concerned about UEFI SecureBoot on ARM hardware (smart-phones, tablets, etc) compared to the work they are doing on x86 PCs with UEFI SecureBoot support for Linux...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTIzNzA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston, TX area
    Posts
    44

    Default

    Regardless of how much the phone/tablet vendor tries to lock down and secure a device, generally within a few weeks of any new product launch, the modding community achieves success in rooting the device.
    1) root and unlocked bootloader are completely different things

    2) there are several devices which have not been cracked due to high security hardware and competent software implementation

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    405

    Default

    Well, I've always called the Windows sticker a warning label. Now it really is, because there's a good chance that the computer won't run anything else.

    Eventually, with x86 PCs, Windows XP/Vista/7 will go out of support, and Microsoft will probably make it mandatory that for the Windows certification, you can't turn off Restricted Boot there, either.

    Then all they have to do is invalidate the signature for the shim bootloader that Fedora, Ubuntu, and the Linux Foundation are using, and Linux will not run at all, even in Crippled Mode. (The Restricted Boot method that they are using won't allow custom kernels or unsigned kernel modules. Whatever your distribution ships is what you're stuck with.)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    353

    Default

    All these arguments aren't convincing. If LF attacks M$ on the desktop, why is Appl€ getting a free pass on mobile, just because of "not likely to agree". The stance should be principal.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    286

    Default


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daniels View Post
    $ in M$ denotes de-facto monopoly and charge for every inevitable installation.
    The picture hence is utter rubbish.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    $ in M$ denotes de-facto monopoly and charge for every inevitable installation.
    The picture hence is utter rubbish.
    Not only that, but its been a long time since Gates ran M$, and to be honest, views that he has expressed in the past suggest that he would NOT support the direction that M$ is going. Their hostility factory has increased by a factor of 100 over the last decade.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,122

    Default

    To respond to the points that were relayed by the article;

    - Focusing on x86 hardware is pointless, because x86 is no longer the dominant processor architecture. The desktop is fading, and there is even hint of ARM SERVERS. From the server perspective, locked bootloaders will NEVER fly, since most servers run LINUX. As a result, any effort to keep the "desktop" open is wasted effort, since it simply won't be around much longer.

    - I'm not sure how it is relevant which platform wondoze is dominant on. This isn't a war against M$, its a war against LOCKED DOWNEDNESS, which is not JUST against M$, but every other vendor who locks down their bootloaders. That means APPLE, BARNES AND NOBLE (android tablets), etc.

    - Apple phones and tablets DO NOT represent "most of the devices out there". Apple only has a 15% market share. Android has OVER 75%. Android has been very significantly ahead of apple for quite a while now, longer than the life span of a built-in lithium ion battery. In tablets, the TOTAL SALES share is 48% Android, 52% Apple. Close enough that the VAST VAST VAST lead in Android phones makes the difference totally irrelevant. Android is outselling apple in tablets by enough of a margin now that in less than ONE YEAR, nearly as many Android tablets have sold as Apple tablets over nearly THREE years.

    The big names in Android phones are Samsung, HTC, LG, Motorola. I don't know much about LG other than the Nexus 4 (which ships unlocked), the other three have a policy of shipping either unlocked (Samsung) or unlockABLE (HTC, Motorola). Now this means, of course, that MOST ARM SMARTPHONES ship with UNLOCKED or UNLOCKABLE bootloaders. For tablets, seems to be heading in the same direction. The "unlock" precedent IS THERE, and is definitely something that should be enforced over all.

    And as already mentioned, root is NOT equivalent to unlocked. Being unlocked means that the user controls the device and has full use of it withOUT hacking it. Root access can be obtained without exploits. Root access by itself does NOT allow you to run a custom Linux kernel on the device. If the locked bootloader doesn't like it, you're stuck hacking it. Cross your fingers and pray that the implementation is weak.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,180

    Default

    Are we talking about the same Gates? The one that wrote the Halloween papers?

Posting Permissions

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