4 ms·

There should be an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. "Secure boot" creates barriers to entry for operating system innovators. I don't see how this isn't an

by csense 14y ago

There should be an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. "Secure boot" creates barriers to entry for operating system innovators. I don't see how this isn't an abuse of monopoly power to tighten the screws on a market threatened by disruptive competition; if antitrust laws can't help us here, I don't know why we even bother to have them. Does anyone know the process in the USA for lodging antitrust complaints with the government?

wmf 14y ago
Microsoft is willing to sign your bootloader as long as you promise not to boot any malware.
tzs 14y ago
Other operating system vendors are free to arrange with hardware manufacturers to include certificates for their operating systems. It's not an antitrust issue that other OS vendors were not able to get their act together in order to do so. On top of that, they have the option of piggybacking on Microsoft's certificate. Microsoft will even subsidize the cost of getting a certificate from Verisign to allow that. Finally, Microsoft is using their market power to force OEMs of x86 computers to include a way for users to disable Secure Boot and to add new certificates.
- Tuna-Fish 14y ago
  > Other operating system vendors are free to arrange with hardware manufacturers to include certificates for their operating systems. It's not an antitrust issue that other OS vendors were not able to get their act together in order to do so. For a lot of users, merely having the option of signing their images simply won't be good enough. Unless the signing keys are available to everyone, you cannot boot a self-compiled kernel on a secure boot system.
  - tzs 14y ago
    If you want to compile your own kernels and boot them without disabling Secure Boot, make your own self-signed certificate, add that to the certificate list the firmware maintains, and self-sign your kernel with your certificate.
- dinkumthinkum 14y ago
  This is has so many problems that it's sort of silly to just name one. But for me, this makes OS research much more painful, let alone anyone else doing anything with Linux that isn't using a distro blessed by Microsoft or one their proxies.
  - tzs 14y ago
    If they are frequently switching between Linux and Windows on a dual boot system, then yes it will be more painful unless the go to the trouble of generating their own signing keys and adding them to the firmware's key database and signing their Linux. If they aren't frequently switching back and forth between Windows and Linux, what's wrong with going into the firmware settings and turning off Secure Boot so that they can run whatever Linux they want with no restrictions?
- rlpb 14y ago
  > Other operating system vendors are free to arrange with hardware manufacturers to include certificates for their operating systems. Actually, this isn't quite true. It turns out that the Secure Boot specification only allows for a single valid certificate in certain places. "...the UEFI specification only allows an image to be signed by a single key" - https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2012-June/035445.html https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2012-June/035...
drhowarddrfine 14y ago
http://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.html http://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.html See my post elsewhere.
freehunter 14y ago
How is it anti-trust to make vendors have a secure boot but also require them to allow users to disable it? And on the RT side, how is it anti-trust to do exactly what Apple does in a market where Microsoft has exactly zero penetration? Double standard. It seems people are willing to let it slide with Apple but not with Microsoft. Even Mozilla came out decrying Microsoft's policy of not allowing third party browsers but never said a peep about iOS. There's no use throwing a fit just because Microsoft is doing it when you let the actual tablet monopoly get away with it for so long.

by csense 14y ago

wmf 14y ago

Microsoft is willing to sign your bootloader as long as you promise not to boot any malware.

tzs 14y ago

Other operating system vendors are free to arrange with hardware manufacturers to include certificates for their operating systems. It's not an antitrust issue that other OS vendors were not able to get their act together in order to do so. On top of that, they have the option of piggybacking on Microsoft's certificate. Microsoft will even subsidize the cost of getting a certificate from Verisign to allow that. Finally, Microsoft is using their market power to force OEMs of x86 computers to include a way for users to disable Secure Boot and to add new certificates.

Tuna-Fish 14y ago
> Other operating system vendors are free to arrange with hardware manufacturers to include certificates for their operating systems. It's not an antitrust issue that other OS vendors were not able to get their act together in order to do so. For a lot of users, merely having the option of signing their images simply won't be good enough. Unless the signing keys are available to everyone, you cannot boot a self-compiled kernel on a secure boot system.
- tzs 14y ago
  If you want to compile your own kernels and boot them without disabling Secure Boot, make your own self-signed certificate, add that to the certificate list the firmware maintains, and self-sign your kernel with your certificate.
dinkumthinkum 14y ago
This is has so many problems that it's sort of silly to just name one. But for me, this makes OS research much more painful, let alone anyone else doing anything with Linux that isn't using a distro blessed by Microsoft or one their proxies.
- tzs 14y ago
  If they are frequently switching between Linux and Windows on a dual boot system, then yes it will be more painful unless the go to the trouble of generating their own signing keys and adding them to the firmware's key database and signing their Linux. If they aren't frequently switching back and forth between Windows and Linux, what's wrong with going into the firmware settings and turning off Secure Boot so that they can run whatever Linux they want with no restrictions?
rlpb 14y ago
> Other operating system vendors are free to arrange with hardware manufacturers to include certificates for their operating systems. Actually, this isn't quite true. It turns out that the Secure Boot specification only allows for a single valid certificate in certain places. "...the UEFI specification only allows an image to be signed by a single key" - https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2012-June/035445.html https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2012-June/035...

drhowarddrfine 14y ago

http://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.html http://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.html See my post elsewhere.

freehunter 14y ago

How is it anti-trust to make vendors have a secure boot but also require them to allow users to disable it? And on the RT side, how is it anti-trust to do exactly what Apple does in a market where Microsoft has exactly zero penetration? Double standard. It seems people are willing to let it slide with Apple but not with Microsoft. Even Mozilla came out decrying Microsoft's policy of not allowing third party browsers but never said a peep about iOS. There's no use throwing a fit just because Microsoft is doing it when you let the actual tablet monopoly get away with it for so long.