3 ms·
I believe that the Windows 10 logo requirements are exactly the opposite of that. If you look at the UEFI requirements for Windows 10[1], specifically clauses
by sblom 10y ago
I believe that the Windows 10 logo requirements are exactly the opposite of that.
If you look at the UEFI requirements for Windows 10[1], specifically clauses 19 and 20, it says for non-ARM systems the user MUST be able to put Secure Boot into Custom signature-checking mode.
[1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/windows/hardware/commercialize/design/compatibility/systems#system-fundamentals-firmware-uefisecureboot https://msdn.microsoft.com/windows/hardware/commercialize/de...
- wmf 10y agoThey're not opposites. PCs are required to have secure boot and they're required to have MS's cert installed and they're required to be able to disable secure boot.
- vedranm 10y agoThis was true in Windows 8 times, but with Windows 10 the requirement to be able to turn off Secure Boot vanished: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/03/windows-10-to-make-the-secure-boot-alt-os-lock-out-a-reality/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/03/windo... The whole story around Secure Boot could be understood (even without a tinfoil hat) as a part of a slippery slope to lock out alternative OSes, highly recommended post: https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/phoronix/general-discussion/49072-new-secureboot-concerns-arise-with-windows-10?p=623687#post623687 https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/phoronix/general-discu...