8 ms·
FSF: Campaign against windows 8 "secure boot"
- robot 15y agoThis is also what we have on mobile devices today. The real burden on mobile seems to be the carriers. I hope it changes real soon.
- redthrowaway 15y agoThis is an articulate, succinct article that clearly outlines the concern without any FUD or name-calling. This is what I want to see from the FSF, and what would make me more likely to donate to them in the future. I hate to turn this into an RMS rant, but this approach stands in stark relief to his "iBad/iGroan/Swindle" theatrics. This, I can appreciate. This, I can get behind. I just wish that these kinds of articles and press releases were what the FSF was most known for.
- fsvehla 15y agoI'm strongly in favor of boycotting the FSF until FMS finally kicks off.</fuck-you-too-rms>
- cmoscoso 15y agohttp://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3086793 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3086793
- beedogs 15y agoWhat were you really hoping to accomplish by posting something this despicable?
- fsvehla 15y agoCheesus, guys; This was meant as an absurdist remark, in equally bad taste as RMS' re: sjobs. (See cmoscoso's link) I was hoping that more readers were aware of this, his most recent sick spew.
- dasht 15y agoI don't think you really mean this: "I hate to turn this into an RMS rant". If it was true that you didn't want to turn it into an RMS rant, then why did you do exactly that? The "theatrics" you refer to -- picking alternative, damning names for treacherous computing devices -- are very much present in this article: Instead of "Secure Boot," the article says, if the vendors implement it in a way that deprives users of control, we should call it "Restricted Boot". Even the reason for the alternative name is similar to the reasons in those other campaigns. So, the "name-calling" is there - to help people remember the issue. Is FUD present in any of these campaigns? "FUD" is a derogatory name for negative statements that drum up false fears, uncertainties, and doubts. In these various FSF campaigns, the fears, uncertainties and doubts are all quite realistic.
- scott_s 15y agoThe name-changes the parent post were referring to were bad puns. "Restricted Boot" is not a bad pun. It's just descriptive of what they fear it may be.
- redthrowaway 15y ago"Restricted Boot" is a perfectly good name for a BIOS replacement that would only allow you to install pre-authorized OSes. "iGroan/iBad/Swindle" is immature playground nonsense. As for not wanting to turn my post into an RMS rant but doing so anyways, I felt it was germane to the submission. You're free to disagree, but there's nothing inconsistent about having reservations about something you're doing.
- heyretard 15y agohey fucking retard, there's a difference between saying "i hate to turn" and "i don't want to turn" - the former indicates that while he hates pointing out what a cock gurgling douche rms is, he still has to. the latter is what you assumed he meant. you are wrong, and i hope you die of cancer.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- SoupIce 15y agoGood show. However it would also be nice if the FSF could come up with an alternative or "pro X" campaign. Like "pro free boot" with a user-defined key to run his/her operating system where the viruses cant do it. The pre-defined key can be printed on the board or similar, which malware cant see. Even GNU/Linux wins.
- kogir 15y ago> The threat is not the UEFI specification itself, but in how computer manufacturers choose to implement the boot restrictions. Exactly. When Apple shipped the first Intel Macs without Boot Camp, there wasn't outrage that Windows/Linux couldn't boot; People that cared just didn't buy them. Just don't purchase a computer that has been crippled by the manufacturer. It will still be possible to build your own computer - OEMs will only bother to certify entire systems, and bare motherboard sales won't be affected by Windows Logo Certification since the class of users who build their own computers don't even notice marketing programs like that. It's also likely that many, perhaps even most, certified systems will offer a means to disable or customize the secure boot functionality. You can disable Computrace, TPM, and Intel ME on virtually all machines that ship with them. This should be no different.
- seven_stones 15y agoIt's a little different when a single, minority system vendor who is selling systems at twice the price does something like this, vs. when the dominant player in 90% of the market wants to require it of all the PC vendors. It doesn't make Apple right, but the surface area affected was much smaller so the objections were commensurately sparse.
- ra 15y agoWhat is important is that we have a voice that can apply pressure where required on the pc / motherboard manufacturers at this time, while things are yet to be decided. The article does say that this could go either way; a point well worth raising with the decision makers who I expect aren't technical like us.
- seclorum 15y agoWe have already seen this before .. I have a stack of Panasonic Toughbooks that have a locked BIOS configuration, and absolutely nothing can be done with these machines (they were thrown away, stupidly) because nobody knows the password to re-configure them to boot properly. The BIOS is completely locked down. So, we will start to see this happen on a broader industry scale, and in my opinion the benefits of "secure boot" definitely do not outweigh the liability of making hardware that won't be useful in the future, simply because 'the OS it originally had on it was such utter shit to require such measures in the first place'..
- cubicle67 15y agoIs it possible to reset the bios? Back in my pc repair days it was possibly by shorting two pins on the motherboard, usually they were near the bios battery
- thomaslangston 15y agoAlternatively, removing the BIOS battery and then reflashing the BIOS chip was an option. A scary, unreliable option because reflashing wasn't always possible and you didn't really know for sure until you tried.
- seclorum 15y agoNope, this cannot be done with these Toughbooks - there are fuses in a surface-mount package that are programmed with the secret key and the BIOS cannot be reset with 'traditional' remove-the-battery hacks - these fuses either have to be read out, or the package needs to be replaced. Its a huge hassle and a dire waste of hardware to have this occur and I personally do not look forward to a future where the whims of a despotic software company dictate what we can do with our possessions. Oh, wait ..
- nobody314159 15y agoNo - one of the requirements for certifying Toughbooks for Police/Military/Paramedic etc applications is that you can't get around the BIOS passwd. Take a look in a police cruiser, it will be a Toughbook mounted on the front seat.
- sagarun 15y agoplease don't forget to sign the statement http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/...
- adamc 15y agoHmm, tried and the page hung. Will try again later.
- rbanffy 15y agoI think we should fear Microsoft lowering OEM licensing prices for manufacturers who remove the option to disable secure boot. They'll probably justify that by claiming it will help reduce piracy and support costs and say that it helps bring computers to more people.
- apetrovic 15y agoAccording to Wikipedia, desktop Linux usage is below 2%. What is Microsoft's incentive to hurt their revenues this way? They sell software for living.
- sounds 15y agoSimple. Microsoft can see that desktop Linux isn't where the hot action is at. So by working for Secure Boot, they increase their revenues by: - Cutting piracy, especially in the 3rd world - Disabling rootkits - Shutting off the oxygen for $0 OS's - Copying Apple - Making it really hard to reverse engineer Windows
- recoiledsnake 15y ago>They'll probably justify that by claiming it will help reduce piracy and support costs and say that it helps bring computers to more people. Their stated reason thus far is that it prevents rootkits that load even before an antivirus can run, thus being able to hide itself. I don't think it reduces piracy, or support costs except those caused by boot malware.
- wmf 15y agoThere are "activator" bootloaders that trick a pirated copy of Windows into thinking that it's licensed. Of course, any machine with secure boot will already include a licensed copy of Windows 8, but secure boot could prevent people from installing pirated copies of Windows 9.
- rbanffy 15y ago> will already include a licensed copy of Windows 8 Even if the first thing you do is to disable the damn thing and install your favorite OS. If it's already hard to buy some computers without Windows, this may make it completely impossible.
- mikerg87 15y agoThis is FUD. Is windows 8 shipping? No. Are there any systems in the wild locked to windows 8. No. Have any vendors come out and said they plan to restrict FOSS from booting so I know who not to do business with? No. Call me back when someone has actually locked out FOSS.
- elehack 15y agoI can't get to the article, so I haven't read it yet and can't comment on it specifically. However, pre-emptive concern is not necessarily FUD. A little sabre-rattling can send a signal to manufacturers that they need to provide an option to disable secure boot or they will tick off a vocal customer base. Waiting until someone has actually locked out alternative operating systems is somewhat too late; the point is to prevent them from doing it in the first place.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- recoiledsnake 15y agoThe only 'official' Windows 8 Preview device so far in the wild(commissioned for manufacture by MS) comes with this setting http://cdn.windows7themes.net/pics/windows-8-uefi-secure-boot.jpg http://cdn.windows7themes.net/pics/windows-8-uefi-secure-boo...
- technomancy 15y ago> Call me back when someone has actually locked out FOSS. The whole point of this article is to prevent that from ever happening. By the time vendors start implementing this plan it will be too late.
- aespinoza 15y agoA lot of the comments, and some articles regarding the issue pose the idea that Microsoft is trying to restrict users from installing other Operating Systems in their own machines. I personally doubt that is the case. Microsoft has bigger problems, and I don't think they are trying to block other OSes (especially Linux). Even so, I don't think the "Secure Boot" implementation will get traction. I think, that even though it s a good idea for malware protection, the execution and wide adoption is not that easy. I believe the "Secure boot" thing won't get very far. Regarding the FSF, I won't comment, I think RMS has tainted enough for me.
- mattmanser 15y agoI think you've missed the salient point: if computer makers wish to distribute machines with the Windows 8 compatibility logo, they will have to implement a measure called "Secure Boot." I obviously have no idea how much that little sticker is supposed to be worth in terms of sales in store, but if Dell, say, complies while others do not they can legitimately claim 'only our computers are windows 8 compatible'. MS is targeting the distribution with this, not the end user, so traction is a lot easier to get.
- aespinoza 15y agoI think that sticker, if required, will obviously pressure OEM makers to obtain it. I believe Microsoft will not go through with implementing Secure Boot. There is no real benefit. The developers pushing this are trying to make Windows more resistant to malware. Secure Boot is not fail proof though. I think in the end, the cost of implementation and distribution of this will out weight its benefits and kill it.
- srdev 15y agoYes, they'll have to implement Secure Boot if they want the little Windows 8 sticker. There's nothing there that says they can't provide an option to turn it off. All arguments make the assumption that Secure Boot is required to be on at all times and not just on on-by-default option.
- 15y ago
- doki_pen 15y agoI always suspect the entertainment industry behind stuff like this. I know the only reason Netflix doesn't run on Linux(even though it runs on ChromeOS, which is linux) is because it is open source. With "secure boot", they could be sure there is no way for you to do anything with the video/audio stream except watch or listen. I think this is the real reason behind this madness. The compromise will be that your hardware will still run, but certain features will be missing without an "approved OS".
- dasht 15y agoSome publishers of various kinds of media welcome the idea of treacherous computing for exactly the reason you suggest: If enough people agree to buy broken computers - so broken that they can not be programmed to copy certain files, for example - then big music companies, book companies, movie companies, etc. all have an easier time. They can, as you say, deliver content only on these broken devices, leading more people to give up their software freedom in exchange for more convenient access to TV or tunes. It doesn't stop there, though. Some software vendors also like these restrictions. With treacherous computing, vendors can make themselves the exclusive providers of software and enjoy monopolistic pricing. In contrast, consider that the cost of a complete operating system for a non-broken computer starts with many decent options at a price of $0. Treacherous computing also makes it easier for software vendors to monitor their users in ways that users can't control and might not even notice. There is no way, for example, to tell some devices not to "call home" and betray a users privacy to their vendors. So it's a convergence of reasons, not just the "entertainment industry" (I guess you mean a few big companies, not everyone who sells entertainment) behind the thing.
- sounds 15y agoWell said.
- teyc 15y agoLet me explain why secure boot/trusted computing matters for me personally. More of my life is conducted on a computer than ever. My family photos, banking transactions, files are all stored on a computer. Meanwhile, Flash and Adobe Reader installs security updates on a regular rhythm. I need my PC to be secure from drive-by downloads. Getting linux to run is a secondary issue, as much as I value software freedom.