I know they're trying. I know M$ is making inroads into security. Linux have their own repos which is a boon to thwart a rouge application and Windows8 is trying hard for it's version (well more like an Apple walled garden). To be honest I feel
Originally Posted by dashcloud
is necessary instead of ooops I installed what? Java and Flash are both dangerous no doubt.
With that said I don't trust them anymore. To each their own however.
Last edited by nightmarex; 12-29-2012 at 02:46 AM.
but MBR Boot viruses aren't 'new'
I remember the Stoned MBR boot virus, but it was easy to fix, as is many of them *if* you have a bootable CD/DVD, you can just clobber the MBR accordingly (tough, if the virus installed DLLs/DSOs, kernel modules whatever then you need to do a audit of system which isn't too difficult with deb or RPM based packages (checksums), worse if those got compromised somehow, while on a recovery DVD, you could just clobber the essential DSOs (libraries), kernel modules etc (with compatible older package versions)
So my question is, since we've had bootsector viruses for YEARS, even old BIOS uses to have MBR bootsector virus detection (limited).
Why the fuss for SecureBoot all of a sudden? It's not like any of this is new, be it MBR or kernel level rootkits.
I think that the original intention is in good faith. I think that this is a first small step into a future where everything, from start to shutdown, is verified by digital signatures.
Originally Posted by spstarr
This is to prevent rootkits and other malicious programs from being ran.
I just don't think this a good approach against this virus problem. You are more effective by focusing on application security before it even reaches the user. Let applications run in different containers, make sure there is no cross contagion between different pieces of software. Let the end-user decide whether this is allowed or not. People need to more self conscious about this. You can throw a lot of technlogy at a certain problem, but in the end it's the user who makes the (fatal) mistakes.
Microsoft fixed their problem by restricting others freedom.
Originally Posted by mjg59
It is like I (microsoft) am the richest and nasties guy in town and because of that kids don't like me and throw rocks on my windows. So what I do? I make the mayor (OEMs), which I hold by the balls, put barriers and guards on the public road so nobody can walk around without my permission.
Then please explain Microsoft distributing signed bootloader binaries.
Originally Posted by zoomblab
To put it in analogy with your story: You can throw rocks at my window as long as I inspected and signed them...
That is sooooo much crap. What if you need to boot a small linux distro thats sole purpose is to circomvent windows user passwords? I do it on a regular basis as a repair tech. Is secureboot going to allow that perfectly valid usage? I doubt it.
Originally Posted by Rexilion
It already does.
Originally Posted by duby229
I read half this thread, and now feel dumber for doing so.
It's incredible how completely stupid some people are, how they are so sure of themselves when they are talking complete crap that is factually wrong.
Care to elaborate your insult? This is a forum, people state opinions. Those cannot be wrong. What facts are incorrect?
Originally Posted by smitty3268
I really don't think that would be worthwhile. It wouldn't be anything that hasn't already been said 100 times.
Originally Posted by Rexilion