4 ms·

Article forgot to mention secure boot shenanigans. I actually own a laptop that literally refuses to run anything except win8 that come with it and doesn't let

Article forgot to mention secure boot shenanigans. I actually own a laptop that literally refuses to run anything except win8 that come with it and doesn't let me disable secure boot. People say that it is a bios bug... but there are no plans to fix the bios.

999900000999 4y ago
I could of swore Ubuntu figured out a way around this. What distro are you using
- kcb 4y ago
  Yea AFAIK Ubuntu and others use a shim signed by Microsoft that boots grub.
  - judge2020 4y ago
    > On Ubuntu, all pre-built binaries intended to be loaded as part of the boot process, with the exception of the initrd image, are signed by Canonical's UEFI certificate, which itself is implicitly trusted by being embedded in the shim loader, itself signed by Microsoft. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UEFI/SecureBoot#How_UEFI_Secure_Boot_works_on_Ubuntu https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UEFI/SecureBoot#How_UEFI_Secure_Boot...
    - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
      Note that the keys uses by Microsoft for signing Windows are different from the ones they use to sign anything else, and some motherboards and laptops only come with the former. Early x86 Surface Pros, for example (even though you could disable secure boot entirely, and be forced to go through Scary Boot Prompts).
- refracture 4y ago
  Ubuntu and Fedora (among others I'm sure) have signed binaries.
hgazx 4y ago
How’s that Microsoft’s fault?
phendrenad2 4y ago
Misplaced blame. You can blame hardware vendors for this. They're supposed to provide a way to load arbitrary signatures, but some didn't (I think they all do now though). Microsoft also has a service where they will sign your executable. And before you claim that's a problem, remember that SSL works the exact same way.
- car_analogy 4y ago
  It's perfectly well-placed blame. Windows RT devices are required to disallow anything but MS operating systems, with no user override: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_RT#Restrictions_and_compatibility_limitations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_RT#Restrictions_and_co... They've also dropped the requirement that vendors must provide a way for users to override secure boot: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/03/windows-10-to-make-the-secure-boot-alt-os-lock-out-a-reality/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/03/windo... They know how to boil a frog.
  - phendrenad2 4y ago
    Slippery slope fallacy. That article is from 7 years ago. They're not boiling the frog, you've just fallen for XKCD 605. They may have dropped the requirement, but hardware vendors are still allowing loading your own keys. Because, there are more factors acting on this than just Microsoft.
    - car_analogy 4y ago
      > Slippery slope fallacy. They literally had a requirement that ARM Windows RT devices be not user unlockable. If someone lunges at you with a knife, but fails to stab you, it is not a "slippery slope fallacy" to believe they tried to kill you. What would it take to convince you? Zero remaining unlocked computers on the market?

999900000999 4y ago

I could of swore Ubuntu figured out a way around this. What distro are you using

kcb 4y ago
Yea AFAIK Ubuntu and others use a shim signed by Microsoft that boots grub.
- judge2020 4y ago
  > On Ubuntu, all pre-built binaries intended to be loaded as part of the boot process, with the exception of the initrd image, are signed by Canonical's UEFI certificate, which itself is implicitly trusted by being embedded in the shim loader, itself signed by Microsoft. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UEFI/SecureBoot#How_UEFI_Secure_Boot_works_on_Ubuntu https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UEFI/SecureBoot#How_UEFI_Secure_Boot...
  - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
    Note that the keys uses by Microsoft for signing Windows are different from the ones they use to sign anything else, and some motherboards and laptops only come with the former. Early x86 Surface Pros, for example (even though you could disable secure boot entirely, and be forced to go through Scary Boot Prompts).
refracture 4y ago
Ubuntu and Fedora (among others I'm sure) have signed binaries.

hgazx 4y ago

How’s that Microsoft’s fault?

phendrenad2 4y ago

Misplaced blame. You can blame hardware vendors for this. They're supposed to provide a way to load arbitrary signatures, but some didn't (I think they all do now though). Microsoft also has a service where they will sign your executable. And before you claim that's a problem, remember that SSL works the exact same way.

car_analogy 4y ago
It's perfectly well-placed blame. Windows RT devices are required to disallow anything but MS operating systems, with no user override: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_RT#Restrictions_and_compatibility_limitations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_RT#Restrictions_and_co... They've also dropped the requirement that vendors must provide a way for users to override secure boot: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/03/windows-10-to-make-the-secure-boot-alt-os-lock-out-a-reality/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/03/windo... They know how to boil a frog.
- phendrenad2 4y ago
  Slippery slope fallacy. That article is from 7 years ago. They're not boiling the frog, you've just fallen for XKCD 605. They may have dropped the requirement, but hardware vendors are still allowing loading your own keys. Because, there are more factors acting on this than just Microsoft.
  - car_analogy 4y ago
    > Slippery slope fallacy. They literally had a requirement that ARM Windows RT devices be not user unlockable. If someone lunges at you with a knife, but fails to stab you, it is not a "slippery slope fallacy" to believe they tried to kill you. What would it take to convince you? Zero remaining unlocked computers on the market?