6 ms·

Another recent example: lockdown of ARM-based Windows machines, preventing the installation of other operating systems.

badsectoracula 8y ago
I really dislike how you get downvoted (your message is faded out) here. Do people really applaud removal of control of their own devices?
- Wurdan 8y ago
  I think it's because Microsoft's reason for doing this is plausible and not as anti-competitive as that comment makes it seem - locking down the boot process has serious security benefits.
  - mpartel 8y ago
    I admit I may be ignorant, but could you spell out the security benefits of going from "locked down but user-openable" to "not user-openable"? (edit: specifically benefits that couldn't be effectively addressed by making it a little difficult and scary to open that lockdown?)
    - nailer 8y ago
      If it's openable it's not locked down. If I can't trust the kernel then every level above it is tainted (this is assuming you can trust the CPU and firmware, but at least ARM is better than Intel here).
      - mpartel 8y ago
        OK, let me be more accurate: "user-openable" in the sense that the user is free to choose to trust any OS vendor they want. What's the unmitigatable harm?
        nailer 8y ago
        A user that isn't the owner of the device - say a repair tech, but possibly a remote third party - installs an OS they trust, which scrapes all the device owners personal info and sends it to their server. The device owner may not ever become aware of this.
        mpartel 8y ago
        For the remote third party case, the option to unlock should be isolated from the OS so that it needs physical access (boot to bios/recovery mode). AIUI that's how it's typically implemented in Androids and in Secure Boot. The point about attackers with physical access is fair, though significantly mitigated on Androids (and Chromebooks I think) by a warning (of varying severity) that the OS has been modified. On my Nexus 5, it's a subtle "unlocked" icon, on my Moto G it's an unmissable red triangle on white background with "warranty void" and other scary words. It's still vulnerable to the user getting a prebooted device and only seeing the warning on next boot, so not perfect, but also not the only imaginable defense. One could e.g. move initial authentication to the locked down "bios" phase so either (a) the warning is visible there and/or (b) the OS isn't replaceable in the first place without authentication. And we should bear in mind that a malicious repair tech can probably convince a fair portion of the population to give away their password :/
        nailer 8y ago
        Yep. These are all fair points.
guardian5x 8y ago
You mean like Android or iOS?
- mpartel 8y ago
  Like iOS yes, and some, but not all, Android manufacturers/phones. "Others do it too" is not a very good justification in my mind.
  - guardian5x 8y ago
    "Others do it too" is not a good justification of course. But his comment also fails to to explain how Microsoft is somehow more evil than the industry standard.
    - mpartel 8y ago
      Bootloader lockdown was practically unheard of for the PC/laptop form factor before Microsoft started doing it for ARM laptops. And and it's not even really standard for phones. Plenty of Android phones have unlockable bootloaders (see LineageOS). I don't think whether one is more evil than Apple/iOS in this regard is a good benchmark.
- hobofan 8y ago
  You mean unlike most other desktop/laptop OEMs/manufacturers? (which would be the more apt point of reference)
raesene9 8y ago
Lockdown of consumer grade devices isn't really a new experience (e.g. iOS devices). There's a trade-off to be had between security/reliability and flexibility. If MS were selling those devices as general purpose computers and then refusing to allow other OS installation, I think that would be dishonest, however as far as I'm aware they're not making such claims.
- mpartel 8y ago
  I don't see the tradeoff honestly. Sure, make it a little difficult, show a big red scary warning, perhaps even require the use of a screwdriver to discourage "casual" users from being misled into compromising their machine's security. But ultimately true ownership, recyclability/reusability (Linux on aging hardware..), and hardware-independent OS competition are norms with significant benefits that we shouldn't give up lightly.
  - raesene9 8y ago
    Those may be norms for IT professionals, but the needs of IT professionals are very different from those of standard users. Realistically most people (numerically) don't want a computer, they want a thing that lets them communicate, create and consume content. Lockdown isn't a problem for them, and walled gardens like iOS are generally the best way for them to stay secure. If you provide a method to escape the sandbox, it is likely that attackers will work out how to exploit that. For example try going to facebook.com and open the developers tools. They've had to put a warning in there to stop people from "self-XSS" ...
    - mpartel 8y ago
      That's why I'm entirely OK with making it scary and a little difficult. And it's not just IT professionals, but also their friends and family, especially those that can't afford to or don't want to get a new device that often. I think this is a pretty significant set of people.
      - raesene9 8y ago

I really dislike how you get downvoted (your message is faded out) here. Do people really applaud removal of control of their own devices?

Wurdan 8y ago
I think it's because Microsoft's reason for doing this is plausible and not as anti-competitive as that comment makes it seem - locking down the boot process has serious security benefits.
- mpartel 8y ago
  I admit I may be ignorant, but could you spell out the security benefits of going from "locked down but user-openable" to "not user-openable"? (edit: specifically benefits that couldn't be effectively addressed by making it a little difficult and scary to open that lockdown?)
  - nailer 8y ago
    If it's openable it's not locked down. If I can't trust the kernel then every level above it is tainted (this is assuming you can trust the CPU and firmware, but at least ARM is better than Intel here).
    - mpartel 8y ago
      OK, let me be more accurate: "user-openable" in the sense that the user is free to choose to trust any OS vendor they want. What's the unmitigatable harm?
      - nailer 8y ago
        A user that isn't the owner of the device - say a repair tech, but possibly a remote third party - installs an OS they trust, which scrapes all the device owners personal info and sends it to their server. The device owner may not ever become aware of this.
        mpartel 8y ago
        For the remote third party case, the option to unlock should be isolated from the OS so that it needs physical access (boot to bios/recovery mode). AIUI that's how it's typically implemented in Androids and in Secure Boot. The point about attackers with physical access is fair, though significantly mitigated on Androids (and Chromebooks I think) by a warning (of varying severity) that the OS has been modified. On my Nexus 5, it's a subtle "unlocked" icon, on my Moto G it's an unmissable red triangle on white background with "warranty void" and other scary words. It's still vulnerable to the user getting a prebooted device and only seeing the warning on next boot, so not perfect, but also not the only imaginable defense. One could e.g. move initial authentication to the locked down "bios" phase so either (a) the warning is visible there and/or (b) the OS isn't replaceable in the first place without authentication. And we should bear in mind that a malicious repair tech can probably convince a fair portion of the population to give away their password :/
        nailer 8y ago
        Yep. These are all fair points.

guardian5x 8y ago

You mean like Android or iOS?

mpartel 8y ago
Like iOS yes, and some, but not all, Android manufacturers/phones. "Others do it too" is not a very good justification in my mind.
- guardian5x 8y ago
  "Others do it too" is not a good justification of course. But his comment also fails to to explain how Microsoft is somehow more evil than the industry standard.
  - mpartel 8y ago
    Bootloader lockdown was practically unheard of for the PC/laptop form factor before Microsoft started doing it for ARM laptops. And and it's not even really standard for phones. Plenty of Android phones have unlockable bootloaders (see LineageOS). I don't think whether one is more evil than Apple/iOS in this regard is a good benchmark.
hobofan 8y ago
You mean unlike most other desktop/laptop OEMs/manufacturers? (which would be the more apt point of reference)

raesene9 8y ago

Lockdown of consumer grade devices isn't really a new experience (e.g. iOS devices). There's a trade-off to be had between security/reliability and flexibility. If MS were selling those devices as general purpose computers and then refusing to allow other OS installation, I think that would be dishonest, however as far as I'm aware they're not making such claims.

mpartel 8y ago
I don't see the tradeoff honestly. Sure, make it a little difficult, show a big red scary warning, perhaps even require the use of a screwdriver to discourage "casual" users from being misled into compromising their machine's security. But ultimately true ownership, recyclability/reusability (Linux on aging hardware..), and hardware-independent OS competition are norms with significant benefits that we shouldn't give up lightly.
- raesene9 8y ago
  Those may be norms for IT professionals, but the needs of IT professionals are very different from those of standard users. Realistically most people (numerically) don't want a computer, they want a thing that lets them communicate, create and consume content. Lockdown isn't a problem for them, and walled gardens like iOS are generally the best way for them to stay secure. If you provide a method to escape the sandbox, it is likely that attackers will work out how to exploit that. For example try going to facebook.com and open the developers tools. They've had to put a warning in there to stop people from "self-XSS" ...
  - mpartel 8y ago
    That's why I'm entirely OK with making it scary and a little difficult. And it's not just IT professionals, but also their friends and family, especially those that can't afford to or don't want to get a new device that often. I think this is a pretty significant set of people.
    - raesene9 8y ago