10 ms·
Ubuntu's Plans To Implement UEFI SecureBoot: No GRUB2
- AndrewDucker 14y agoLooks like all the distributions are going to be signed with the MS key. In which case, would it not be worth clubbing together to have a root key manager, who can take the place of MS in signing packages?
- fl3tch 14y agoYou mean like a CA? Of course they could do that, but then it wouldn't be Windows Certified (it would just be Somebody-Else Certified), which is how OEMs want to brand their products. This is all about dealing with Microsoft's hegemony.
- Albuca 14y agoI agree. It looks like all the Distro's will have to jump on the bandwagon so to speak in order to be used by the new Windows 8 boxes. Then in this case, why are all the distro's having to shell out to get a licence key from Microsoft? I know of a lot of small distro's that dont produce any income, and pay for their webspace out of their own pocket. Why are we going to force them to purchase a key to allow their distro to run on a Windows 8 box?
- AndrewDucker 14y agoIf they don't want Secure Boot then the user can turn it off. If they do want secure boot then it needs to be signed by _someone_, and none of the Linux distributors have been willing to step forward and be that someone.
- Ralith 14y ago> If they don't want Secure Boot then the user can turn it off. Unless you're on ARM, in which case you're screwed.
- jroll 14y agoDoes this mean it might be possible to install Ubuntu on ARM devices preloaded with Windows 8?
- abrowne 14y agoNo, only on Intel. From the "Requirements for certifying Windows 8 systems" PDF available at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/windows/hardware/hh748188 http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/windows/hardware/hh748188 : MANDATORY. On non-ARM systems, the platform MUST implement the ability for a physically present user to select between two Secure Boot modes in firmware setup: "Custom" and "Standard". Custom Mode allows for more flexibility as specified [...] On an ARM system, it is forbidden to enable Custom Mode. Only Standard Mode may be enabled.
- setrofim_ 14y agoOn an ARM system, it is forbidden to enable Custom Mode. Only Standard Mode may be enabled. Does this mean that , on compliant ARM devices, only Windows 8 may be run? If so, how is this not anti-competitive?
- morsch 14y agoIf it is anti-competitive, then what? There's no Microsoft monopoly on ARM they could leverage, they own nothing of that market.
- gareim 14y agoI thought it was that anti-competitive actions were illegal (or just heavily frowned upon?) and monopolies in and of themselves aren't bad, just if they abuse their power in an anti-competitive way.
- setrofim_ 14y agoIIRC, it's basically has to be the combinations of the two. Monopolies aren't illegal in and of themselves. But neither are actions that may be deemed anti-competitive. It's only illegal when a monopoly (or a dominant player - doesn't have to be a monopoly) exploits its position to gain further advantage through anti-competitive actions.
- davidcollantes 14y agoFrom the source[1][2] and not on an advertising infested page. [1] http://blog.canonical.com/2012/06/22/an-update-on-ubuntu-and-secure-boot/ http://blog.canonical.com/2012/06/22/an-update-on-ubuntu-and... [2] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2012-June/035445.html https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2012-June/035...
- nicholassmith 14y agoWhat a catch 22. We want commitment to OSS so we're GPL v3, but because of our commitment we can't supply OSS so instead we're going to go for something else that's not OSS so we don't disclose the key. Someone, somewhere, has just torn their beard out in fury.
- rquirk 14y agoefilinux looks to be BSD, so at least it isn't like they are using a proprietary boot loader. https://github.com/mfleming/efilinux https://github.com/mfleming/efilinux
- _delirium 14y agoWhile true that you will be able to modify the efilinux code, you won't be able to run the modified version, since it won't be signed, making it a very theoretical sort of open source. That kind of open-source-but-not-really situation is exactly what GPLv3 was trying to prevent.
- kryptiskt 14y agoIf you're able to build your own version, you are certainly able to disable secure boot or install your own keys (both of which are mandatory for Intel hardware). The big drawback is that you have to splash out on your own $99 key if you want to distribute your alternative to people who don't want to disable secure boot.
- Jach 14y ago> ...you won't be able to run the modified version... "Tivoization"[1] is a different problem than "can't run because of [any reason besides the hardware owner doesn't want you to]", unless you're talking about another aspect of v3. For instance anything that is AGPL'd presumably is released without the passwords to the database, which presumably doesn't allow remote connections! Are you saying that doing such is a violation of the A/GPLv3 in either legality or spirit? (And you can't license all the data in your DB--think of all the poor sites storing user passwords in plaintext. Also data licenses are more tricky than software ones, but if code is data and data is code...) And of course, even with DRM that supposedly makes it so unauthorized code cannot be run, it's more or less really just saying "we make it harder." I've seen a lot of "we got our tivo to run Linux or something else" posts, and the PS3 drama was interesting to watch unfold. [1] I side with Torvalds with a dislike for this word: "[Stallman] calls it "tivoization", but that's a word he has made up, and a term I find offensive, so I don't choose to use it. It's offensive because Tivo never did anything wrong, and the FSF even acknowledged that. The fact that they do their hardware and have some DRM issues with the content producers and thus want to protect the integrity of that hardware. "The kernel license covers the kernel. It does not cover boot loaders and hardware, and as far as I'm concerned, people who make their own hardware can design them any which way they want. Whether that means "booting only a specific kernel" or "sharks with lasers", I don't care."
- dsr_ 14y ago"That if once you have paid him the Danegeld, You never get rid of the Dane." -- Rudyard Kipling
- pieter 14y agoFrom the mailing list: "We believe that the intention of secure boot is to protect against malicious use or modification of pre-boot code, before the ExitBootServices UEFI service is invoked. Currently, this call is performed by the boot loader, before the kernel is executed. Therefore, we will only be requiring authentication of boot loader binaries. Ubuntu will not require signed kernel images or kernel modules." That's completely different from what Fedora is doing (signing all kernels and modules). I hope for them Microsoft agrees with their interpretation and won't revoke their signed binaries. I'm not sure what advantage they would get from a signed boot loader, if you can run any arbitrary kernel from within the loader.
- ajross 14y agoI was wondering about this too. From the user's perspective, this is great, as it basically means that everything downstream from the custom UEFI bootloader can be unsigned, user-defined code. But at the same time, it pretty clearly defeats the purpose of the UEFI signature chain. A plausible malware vector would thus be to install the ubuntu loader, which then loads your malware payload and chains to windows, compromising the "secure" boot. Basically, it undoes secure boot entirely. Which is a good thing. I hope Microsoft is willing to look the other way on this, but I fear that they are not.
- StavrosK 14y agoCan someone explain what the practical advantage of DRMing all our computers is?
- hk_kh 14y agoTo perceive the computer as an appliance instead of a piece of hardware. Alienate the users on their machine, not something that can be hacked, studied and understood as a computer, instead a piece of magical wisdom. Dumb down the mainstream user, and tie them up on their products. "Protect" their software, being the computer just a black box projecting their knowledge / entertainment. I hope DRM backfires really hard on the companies advocating for it.
- StavrosK 14y agoNo, I meant the advantage to users. Why would I buy a computer that's crippled like that?
- AndrewDucker 14y agoIf you're corporate you buy it to make sure that the OS and Drivers are both signed by the people you bought them from, and thus nobody has tampered with them.
- ori_b 14y ago> Why would I buy a computer that's crippled like that? Because I want a computer. I go to the store, I see a cheap one, and I pay for it. Then I go home and use it. I'm an end user that just wants to get to email, youtube, and Google. I don't know what secure boot is, what a BIOS or an EFI is, all I care is that I don't have to spend money. I don't know it's crippled. I have no way of noticing. Hell, I'm still using Internet Explorer.
- rimantas 14y ago> To perceive the computer as an appliance instead of a piece of hardware. For many (most?) computers are appliances. Which does not contradict them being pieces of hardware. > Alienate the users on their machine, not something that can be hacked, > studied and understood as a computer, instead a piece of magical wisdom. What a load of bullshit. > Dumb down the mainstream user, and tie them up on their products. It seems it is extremely hard to grasp the simple true: only minority of the population is interested in being hackers, programmers and IT guys. They just want to use computers — much the same way like they drive their cars without any wish and ambition to be a car mechanic. It is not "dumbing down" — it is freeing them from caring "how do I make this fucking thing work" to just doing what they want to do: be it browsing Facebook, writing a research paper or calculating orbit to Mars.
- xaa 14y agoWhy is this whole SecureBoot saga not being considered as anticompetitive behavior by Microsoft? It's pretty clear that the only "advantage" of SecureBoot is to hinder competing OSes. And that Microsoft has only been able to obtain such a favorable result from the UEFI forum by throwing its weight around.
- blahedo 14y agoAgreed. Microsoft has used their dominant position to strongarm the hardware companies into putting up a tollgate, which forces all of Microsoft's competitors to pay Microsoft if they want to keep competing. Right?
- bschlinker 14y agoYou think Microsoft believes that a 99$ fee (as described in the article) will hinder their competitors?
- btilly 14y ago$99 from a vendor for all of their sales is not a big financial deal. The interesting part comes the first time Microsoft decides to revoke a competitor's key as part of a Windows update, and people who dual-boot find out about it because they no longer can dual-boot. Even if the mess gets fixed quickly, it will be a cause of FUD. How blatant will they be in taking advantage of that?
- blahedo 14y agoSorry, didn't realise the fee was only $99; you're right, that's more of a nuisance fee than anything else. I'm still concerned that MS is manning the tollbooth, though, for roughly the reasons you state. :)
- recoiledsnake 14y ago>Sorry, didn't realise the fee was only $99; you're right, that's more of a nuisance fee than anything else That's not your fault. It's part the press writing flamebait headlines to drive page hits and intentional FUD from some people repeating the story as 'RedHat forced to pay MS' and gloss over the $99/year which won't even start to mitigate MS' cost to run such a signing service.
- mkjackson 14y agoThis is just disgusting. How in the world did our hardware get hijacked by MS and nobody anywhere did anything to stop it? Seriously! I can only hope that there's enough backlash to stop this mockery of consumer freedom to put things back to the way they are now.
- RobAley 14y agoApple and smartphone manufacturers started the locked down hardware trend, Microsoft are riding their coat tails to achieve what they've wanted all along. To be fair, these standards aren't controlled by Microsoft, but they've thrown their weight at the manufacturers to make sure the standards are implemented in a way which grossly favours them as the PC OS incumbent. But they are using the recent success of Apple & co in consumer circles to diminish the appearance of their monopoly and make it look as if choices abound to the consumer.
- adestefan 14y agoLocked down hardware started long before smartphones and Apple were even thought of.
- elehack 14y agoYes, but Apple was the first to make lockdown an acceptable, or even desirable, thing for general-purpose consumer computing devices on a large scale. The idea was around, and implemented in a number of places (especially on phones), but Apple was the first to pull the marketing trick of getting the world to accept or welcome it in a domain thought of as computing rather than peripheral or special-purpose devices.
- aiscott 14y agoIt isn't "our" hardware, and that is the problem. It is "their" hardware that they sell to us. For it to be "our's", we'd have to design and manufacture it.
- whalesalad 14y agoHow the fuck do people tolerate Phoronix? I know they do good reporting and are awesome in the Linux community ... but good god browsing their website is like walking through an old minefield in Vietnam. Every other word opens a popover, popovers on load, popovers if you scroll. Look at the sidebar and an ad will appear somewhere.
- protomyth 14y agoIts because "they do good reporting and are awesome in the Linux community" (also BSD). If someone else had the same level of reporting, I would go there. It is not much fun and I tend to hit "Read Later" and read it in InstaPaper.
- ysangkok 14y agohttp://h-online.com/open http://h-online.com/open
- wissler 14y agoHow the fuck does bitching about irrelevancy earn the highest number of upvotes?
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- sounds 14y agoI understand Phoronix's stated reason for papering themselves with ads, though I think it actually does them more harm than good. (They state it's because they are a one-man show and don't make much money.) Though Phoronix occasionally puts up a plea not to do this, I just installed AdBlock Plus.
- hollerith 14y ago>How the fuck do people tolerate Phoronix? I use Adblock Plus, and I never experience any ads or popovers on Phoronix.com.
- 14y ago
- hippich 14y agoI would imagine secureboot work this way - you start machine, UEFI detects that signature of bootloader or kernel or whatever fails signature verification. If it fails - ask user if he wants to save new signature instead or if he did not install any updates to kernel/boot/etc. This way it will be: - universally between OSes - will allow GPL code to be used - will not lock people into particular software platform Are there any problems with my approach?
- charlieman 14y agoPeople usually presses the first button they see without reading the message.
- unimpressive 14y ago>Are there any problems with my approach? Yes. The classic "People ignore popups" dilemma. The thing is, 99% of people on the planet either wouldn't know what a change to their boot sector is, or what to do if one occurs. So they would just leave it and go on with their root kit installed.
- bschlinker 14y agoThe same reason why browsers are now making it so tough to get to a website without a "valid" SSL certificate -- the average user will ignore the warnings and accept anything to get to their objective. This is one of the reasons why Google Chrome now prevents users from accepting invalid SSL certificates for some Google properties.
- mathnode 14y agoHow does this affect me as somebody who builds their own computers for personal use? Does this only affect vendor sourced desktops i.e. HP, dell etc ?
- jiggy2011 14y agoThat would depend on the motherboard you bought
- gcb 14y agoTranslates like this: if you bought a safeboot system, you're helpless It has absolutely no security soundness. It may protect you against evil maid attack. But even so, less than decent fs encryption. It's nothing more than a ploy to help Microsoft, and Ubuntu and RH are falling for the sole reason of having too much money. It's like ssl certificates for bios. Burn it.
- rlpb 14y ago"Booting our CDs will rely on a loader image signed by Microsoft's WinQual key...the UEFI specification only allows an image to be signed by a single key." This is anti-competitive and should not be acceptable. The UEFI specification needs to be fixed before vendors are forced to comply with it. It is disappointing that this won't happen.
- rplnt 14y agoSome other organization could (should) take over but we see how that works with DNS - not so well.
- maxerickson 14y agoMicrosoft is requiring companies that want a 'Works with Windows 8' sticker to, um, work with Windows 8. The logo program doesn't stop manufacturers creating similar unstickered hardware or putting more than one key in the stickered hardware.
- andrewaylett 14y agoThat's orthogonal: the issue here is that if you want to sign a bootloader (or anything else) then you can only do it with a single key. While there's nothing stopping Win8 stickered machines containing two keys, you can be sure that not all of them will, so you need to sign your code with a Microsoft-derived key if you want it to work everywhere. That means you can't sign it with your own key.
- sounds 14y agoAlthough I would like to agree with you, I'm not convinced. The reason Ubuntu (and Red Hat) aren't pushing to get their key included in the hardware is clear from the article: "Microsoft's WinQual key, for much the same reasons as Fedora: it's a key that, realistically, more or less every off-the-shelf system is going to have, as it also signs things like option ROMs, and the UEFI specification only allows an image to be signed by a single key." The Microsoft WinQual key monopoly is there because option ROMs (and other drivers) are only given one slot for a signature. After Microsoft signs the ROM, the manufacturer _can't_ add a Red Hat or Ubuntu signature to the drivers for their hardware. This means even if you convinced all the manufacturers to include, say, a Ubuntu key, you still couldn't verify option ROMs were secure. Only Microsoft's key would work for that - thus, Microsoft's key will be the only one installed by the manufacturers. Your next solution - creating unstickered hardware - is not a solution. There are a few manufacturers offering a linux option (Dell, Lenovo), and a few who sell only linux hardware (system76.com). In a UEFI secure boot world, there would be < 1% of hardware that wasn't locked to Microsoft's key, while 99%+ would be locked. I know users are supposed to be able to access a BIOS screen to disable secure boot, but that makes installing Linux much more painful than installing Windows 8. Why cede the advantage to Microsoft? The best way to fight this, I believe, is to put your time and resources into coreboot.org and the FSF.
- vog 14y agoWhy not linking directly to the source? http://blog.canonical.com/2012/06/22/an-update-on-ubuntu-and-secure-boot/ http://blog.canonical.com/2012/06/22/an-update-on-ubuntu-and...
- ward 14y agoBecause, as mentioned in the article, there was more interesting information to be found in the mailing list, which Phoronix combined into their blog post.
- Karunamon 14y agoI'm really having a hard time getting worked up over a $99 key which will all but completely eliminate boot sector infectors and the like. I think a lot of this storm and strife comes as a result of who is pushing it, less than the concept.
- jellicle 14y agoIt's not the fee that's the problem. It's the permission. Suppose Wikileaks developed installable software that embarrassed the U.S. government. Would their key have been revoked, making it impossible for anyone to run their software? Yes.
- Karunamon 14y agoWhat "permission"? The key is open to anyone with the $99, or at least that was my understanding. Also, slippery slope. Cmon.
- elehack 14y agoThere is a fine line between slippery slope as a fallacy, and the legitimate concern that the very existence of a feature like this invites abuse. Or the even more legitimate desire to build a world in which bad actors (corporations, governments, etc.) cannot do remote evil, rather than a world that works only because they don't do remote evil. That which does not exist cannot be abused. I'd much prefer a world where authorities cannot disable software, not a world where they merely don't. That's not fallacious slippery slope reasoning. It's an argument for structural and technical rather than merely moral, ethical, or legal impediments to abuse of authority.
- Karunamon 14y ago>It's an argument for structural and technical rather than merely moral, ethical, or legal impediments to abuse of authority. I've got to disagree with you there. Every piece of modern technology out there has the potential for abuse of authority - but you don't crap on the tech wholesale simply based on that alone. The moral/ethical/legal impediments are how you rein in abuse, not by hamstringing yourself.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- yason 14y agoHaving long lost the appetite to stay on top of PC hardware, could someone kind please post a pointer to an article that explain what this UEFI SecureBoot actually means for generic hackers intending to run Linux or $whatever on their computers? What's all the fuss here? I know how secure booting works and that it would be detrimental if enforced unilaterally but I've also read you can just turn off the UEFI SecureBoot from the equivalent of BIOS settings of these Windows 8 compatible machines. So, in order to boot into whatever I want, I just tick that check off and go play with my computer like before? If so, then what's the problem?