3 ms·

I was sympathetic to the Red Hat guy until this: >The final irony? If the user has no control over the installed keys, the user has no way to indicate that the

I was sympathetic to the Red Hat guy until this: >The final irony? If the user has no control over the installed keys, the user has no way to indicate that they don't trust Microsoft products. They can prevent their system booting malware. They can prevent their system booting Red Hat, Ubuntu, FreeBSD, OS X or any other operating system. But they can't prevent their system from running Windows 8. Err what? This boggles the mind. If you don't trust MS, DO NOT INSTALL WINDOWS. See, it's that easy. >If Microsoft were serious about giving the end user control, they'd be mandating that systems ship without any keys installed. The user would then have the ability to make an informed and conscious decision to limit the flexibility of their system and install the keys. The user would be told what they'd be gaining and what they'd be giving up. Huh what? You want my mom to make an informed and conscious decision about certificate chaining? I can see with going very well with 95% of PC users. This is typical behavior from geeks, putting the decision of about the choice of modules.conf vs. conf.modules which the user doesn't care about and just wants the software to work.

ajross 15y ago
(Bemused aside: mjg is now just a "Red Hat guy"? Sigh...) Apologies if your mind is boggled, but you're entirely missing the point. The point to a secure boot framework is to prevent the running of untrusted software under any circumstances. Simply choosing not to install something doesn't prevent malware from installing it without your approval. The question is what "trusted" means. Right now, it means Microsoft only. If you don't trust MS, then you get no protection against MS-signed boot images, even if you choose not to install windows. See the point? Maybe you trust Microsoft. Some people don't. But more to the point even trusted actors sometimes have their keys compromised (c.f. the current mess in the Netherlands). Some mechanism for user control over key chains by the hardware owner (or your mother's trusted proxy, I guess) is a critical component to any truly "secure" product.
bad_user 15y ago
If you don't trust MS, DO NOT INSTALL WINDOWS If Windows is the only thing that a computer will allow, then that really isn't an option. It's like saying that when owning an iPhone you have the option of not installing iOS. You want my mom to make an informed and conscious decision Dude, "mom" arguments are really retarded, IMHO in the same category as "think of the children". I agree with security-by-default arguments, but let the user have the choice of overriding those settings -- it doesn't have to be convenient for power-users, it just has to be doable. Otherwise the hardware ain't yours anymore, you just payed for an overpriced license to use it as an appliance.
- recoiledsnake 15y ago
  >but let the user have the choice of overriding those settings How is MS restricting that? They even let the user do it on their own tablets that they got Samsung to make for them!
slowpoke 15y ago
>This is typical behavior from geeks, putting the decision of about the choice of modules.conf vs. conf.modules which the user doesn't care about and just wants the software to work. I want my software to work too, as a geek. This entire mess might prevent that. How is that justified? Hint: it isn't. If they can't find a solution that's acceptable for both sides of the equation, then they should not be allowed to do this. To simply tell us geeks to "suck it up, consumers are more important" is an equally as fatal mistake as "fuck the consumers, the geeks demand something".
- recoiledsnake 15y ago
  >If they can't find a solution that's acceptable for both sides of the equation, then they should not be allowed to do this. Who is 'they' in the above line? MS or the OEM? >To simply tell us geeks to "suck it up, consumers are more important" is an equally as fatal mistake as "fuck the consumers, the geeks demand something". I see that this is working VERY well for Apple and Android OEMs. The solution is simple, bu

ajross 15y ago

(Bemused aside: mjg is now just a "Red Hat guy"? Sigh...) Apologies if your mind is boggled, but you're entirely missing the point. The point to a secure boot framework is to prevent the running of untrusted software under any circumstances. Simply choosing not to install something doesn't prevent malware from installing it without your approval. The question is what "trusted" means. Right now, it means Microsoft only. If you don't trust MS, then you get no protection against MS-signed boot images, even if you choose not to install windows. See the point? Maybe you trust Microsoft. Some people don't. But more to the point even trusted actors sometimes have their keys compromised (c.f. the current mess in the Netherlands). Some mechanism for user control over key chains by the hardware owner (or your mother's trusted proxy, I guess) is a critical component to any truly "secure" product.

bad_user 15y ago

If you don't trust MS, DO NOT INSTALL WINDOWS If Windows is the only thing that a computer will allow, then that really isn't an option. It's like saying that when owning an iPhone you have the option of not installing iOS. You want my mom to make an informed and conscious decision Dude, "mom" arguments are really retarded, IMHO in the same category as "think of the children". I agree with security-by-default arguments, but let the user have the choice of overriding those settings -- it doesn't have to be convenient for power-users, it just has to be doable. Otherwise the hardware ain't yours anymore, you just payed for an overpriced license to use it as an appliance.

recoiledsnake 15y ago
>but let the user have the choice of overriding those settings How is MS restricting that? They even let the user do it on their own tablets that they got Samsung to make for them!

slowpoke 15y ago

>This is typical behavior from geeks, putting the decision of about the choice of modules.conf vs. conf.modules which the user doesn't care about and just wants the software to work. I want my software to work too, as a geek. This entire mess might prevent that. How is that justified? Hint: it isn't. If they can't find a solution that's acceptable for both sides of the equation, then they should not be allowed to do this. To simply tell us geeks to "suck it up, consumers are more important" is an equally as fatal mistake as "fuck the consumers, the geeks demand something".

recoiledsnake 15y ago
>If they can't find a solution that's acceptable for both sides of the equation, then they should not be allowed to do this. Who is 'they' in the above line? MS or the OEM? >To simply tell us geeks to "suck it up, consumers are more important" is an equally as fatal mistake as "fuck the consumers, the geeks demand something". I see that this is working VERY well for Apple and Android OEMs. The solution is simple, bu