3 ms·
At least HP sold some where it seemed to intentionally disable setup mode for consumer grade hardware[1]. Arm based Surface devices where locked down to Windows
by josefx 5y ago
At least HP sold some where it seemed to intentionally disable setup mode for consumer grade hardware[1]. Arm based Surface devices where locked down to WindowsRT using secure boot[2]. The WindowsRT case was basically the foundation of the outrage, not only did Microsoft claim to not abuse its position as only entity able to sign code that would run on nearly all secure boot enabled devices, it immediately released a secure boot enabled product that locked out Linux.
[1]https://superuser.com/questions/1024111/adding-keys-to-secure-boot-database-on-an-hp-pavilion-14-ab057ca https://superuser.com/questions/1024111/adding-keys-to-secur...
[2]https://www.mickaelwalter.fr/linux-on-surface-rt/ https://www.mickaelwalter.fr/linux-on-surface-rt/
- staticassertion 5y ago> not only did Microsoft claim to not abuse its position as only entity able to sign code that would run on nearly all secure boot enabled devices ??? And how is HP fucking their eufi up a Microsoft problem?
- josefx 5y ago> And how is HP fucking their eufi up a Microsoft problem? My claim was that there where computers where Linux only ran with Microsofts signature. I listed two systems (HP/Surface) where this is the case. Mainly because finding more is a pain, with support requests more likely to go off to nowhere instead of outright showing that no support for it exists. One might make the case that Microsoft claimed it would require the ability to add alternative keys and conveniently failed to enforce that claim. If the goal was to blame Microsoft instead of just showing that Secure Boot can be easily used to lock users into one top down approved system.
- fomine3 5y agoIIRC MS forced lock out for Windows RT ARM devices, but oppositely forced not to lock out for Windows 8 x86 devices.