4 ms·

Vista SP1 won't install on dual-boot systems (Trusted computing veers its ugly head)

8 points by nickb 18y ago

KirinDave 18y ago
Damnit, can we please stop this "TPM = Trusted Computing" FUD that's been floating around. The TPM is a hardware-secured cryptographic assist that anyone can use. It is extremely useful in security applications, and if you read the article what Microsoft is trying to do is both correct and secure. Trusted Computing is part of a larger effort of which the TPM chips were only one small part, and a part which is arguably one of the most beneficial-to-the-consumer parts of the system.
- anamax 18y ago
  How is it "correct and secure" to make dual boot more difficult? How is it "correct and secure" to make dual boot unavailable when bitlocker is used?
  - KirinDave 18y ago
    They can't verify what every executable in the bootloading chain will do, so they simply refuse to boot vista in the event that they can't verify it is being booted by known code. This is "secure", because they do a best-effort guarantee to prevent foreign code from entering the boot process. Refusing to boot is "correct" because it is the only course of action the Vista bootloader has to avoid loading tainted code. A far worse decision would be to modify the system to remove that bootloader and then reboot. This is not a MS vs. the world thing, and I am certainly not a microsoft apologist. Whole-disk encryption for Linux should do something similar, and hopefully will make use of TPM chips if they are available.
- quoderat 18y ago
  When it is "correct and secure" to break a setup that I've made, and is how I prefer it to be, it is no longer "correct and secure." Glad I switched to Linux full time -- and guess why? Yep, because I ran Vista for a year and abhorred it.
dhimes 18y ago
The article is from March. Not news.
olefoo 18y ago
OK, this is lame. The original article explains fairly clearly that. a. this only applies when the vista volume is protected b. that it stops installing the vista upgrade so it wont step on your bootloader. So now we're kicking microsoft for doing the right thing? I mean personally I'd rather experiment with recreational cholera infections than run any version of Windows, but come on, this headline is some quality flamebait.

8 points by nickb 18y ago

Damnit, can we please stop this "TPM = Trusted Computing" FUD that's been floating around. The TPM is a hardware-secured cryptographic assist that anyone can use. It is extremely useful in security applications, and if you read the article what Microsoft is trying to do is both correct and secure. Trusted Computing is part of a larger effort of which the TPM chips were only one small part, and a part which is arguably one of the most beneficial-to-the-consumer parts of the system.

anamax 18y ago
How is it "correct and secure" to make dual boot more difficult? How is it "correct and secure" to make dual boot unavailable when bitlocker is used?
- KirinDave 18y ago
  They can't verify what every executable in the bootloading chain will do, so they simply refuse to boot vista in the event that they can't verify it is being booted by known code. This is "secure", because they do a best-effort guarantee to prevent foreign code from entering the boot process. Refusing to boot is "correct" because it is the only course of action the Vista bootloader has to avoid loading tainted code. A far worse decision would be to modify the system to remove that bootloader and then reboot. This is not a MS vs. the world thing, and I am certainly not a microsoft apologist. Whole-disk encryption for Linux should do something similar, and hopefully will make use of TPM chips if they are available.
quoderat 18y ago
When it is "correct and secure" to break a setup that I've made, and is how I prefer it to be, it is no longer "correct and secure." Glad I switched to Linux full time -- and guess why? Yep, because I ran Vista for a year and abhorred it.

dhimes 18y ago

The article is from March. Not news.

olefoo 18y ago

OK, this is lame. The original article explains fairly clearly that. a. this only applies when the vista volume is protected b. that it stops installing the vista upgrade so it wont step on your bootloader. So now we're kicking microsoft for doing the right thing? I mean personally I'd rather experiment with recreational cholera infections than run any version of Windows, but come on, this headline is some quality flamebait.