6 ms·
> [...] systems that only trust the new certificate and not the old one would refuse to boot older Linux, wouldn't support old graphics cards, and also wouldn't
by M95D 1y ago
> [...] systems that only trust the new certificate and not the old one would refuse to boot older Linux, wouldn't support old graphics cards, and also wouldn't boot old versions of Windows. Nobody wants that [...]
EVERYBODY wants that! And I mean ABSOLUTELY EVERYBODY! Updates are now mandatory everywhere, in both Windows and Linux, and GPU manufactureres would LOVE to make the old cards obsolete, even if technically the new cards aren't much better.
So expect to see the old certificate invalidated quickly and automatically, in the name of security, of course!
- michaelt 1y agoEven if this did happen, there's a trivial workaround available: Just go into your BIOS and switch 'Secure Boot' off. Secure Boot is a fine thing if you're a huge corporation and want to harden laptops against untrustworthy employees, or you've got such a huge fleet of servers they go missing despite your physical security controls, or you're making a TiVo style product you want to harden against the device owners. But when the user is the device owner? Doesn't do much.
- trelane 1y ago> you're making a TiVo style product you want to harden against the device owners. This sentence just makes me so sad
- observationist 1y agoThis should be illegal, and anyone caught doing it fined twice the total cost of amortized ownership per each device owner over the total duration of ownership in addition to completely refunding every customer. Throw in jail time for decision makers. Lets make markets honest with real incentives.
- necovek 1y agoFor a start, stop buying those products: vote with your wallet. Do you own a phone that's easily rooted? Who else does? What about your WiFi routers? Internet modem? AirTags? Smart home appliances?
- esseph 1y agoRooting a phone fails certain security checks that prevent a lot of banking apps from working on your device.
- necovek 1y agoYes, it's equivalent to running a computer with admin access, and most banking web sites have no issue with that. Still, my point was not about running a rooted phone with unlocked bootloader (secure boot disabled on a pc equivalent), but whether if this is possible accounts in your purchasing decision.
- tsimionescu 1y agoBefore we had secure phones, we used to get hardware gadgets from banks in order to secure access. Now that phones are secure enough, the phones act as the root of trust (and, unfortunately, SMS does as well...).
- necovek 1y agoYes, and phones are full of vulnerabilities because vendors provide security updates only for 2-5 years (high end being rare), thus making this a moot point.
- charcircuit 1y agoThe security measures do not need to be perfect. As long as fraud remains at a reasonable level it should be fine.
- Terr_ 1y agoAnd/or abolish the DMCA "anti-circumvention" laws, which makes it a crime to pick (digital) locks that you own, or discuss how one might do so. It's still a problem if manufacturers force ExploitationOS on the device I bought, but it's not-as-bad when everyone can collaborate to disable the exploitation-parts. https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca
- immibis 1y agoSometimes, people even break the law.
- jon-wood 1y agoThis isn't just about hardening devices against the owner, some devices by the nature of what they're doing have to go in places where their physical security can't be guaranteed, secure boot means that we can put those devices there and not worry about some kid with a USB stick coming by and either wholesale replacing the operating system with something else or injecting a botnet client into the running system.
- trelane 1y agoWhy? There is a perfectly cromulent license, sitting right there https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html It was even explicitly designed to prevent "tivoization." https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/tivoization.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/tivoization.en.html One just has to use it to prevent their software from being locked away from the end user
- M95D 1y agoYou won't be able to switch it off for long. See how many phones still have that option! [1] In the end what matters is always money. Always. What brings more money? TiVo or buyer-owned device? You think 5% of technically competent potential buyers would make a difference when the 95% illiterate users will just replace the product no questions asked? It started as a fight against piracy and half-competent users that break their own systems (and the company's systems too, like you said). But slowly the industry sees that there's more money to be made if the same technology can provide a belivable argument in right to repair and planned obsolescence court cases. [1] https://github.com/melontini/bootloader-unlock-wall-of-shame https://github.com/melontini/bootloader-unlock-wall-of-shame
- II2II 1y agoGet back to me when it actually happens, because I've been hearing that line for about 15 years now and it has not happened. The reality is that PC's address the needs of a fundamentally different market than "TiVo"s or even mobile phones. While most could, and probably should, be using secure boot noone seems to be eager to take away the option to disable it.
- Lammy 1y ago> Get back to me when it actually happens Hello from 2013, and here you go! https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ARM/SurfaceRT#Secure_Boot https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ARM/SurfaceRT#Secure_Boot https://openrt.gitbook.io/open-surfacert/common/boot-sequence/uefi/secure-boot https://openrt.gitbook.io/open-surfacert/common/boot-sequenc...
- LeoPanthera 1y agoThis is only true if you count ARM tablets as "PCs", which most people don't.
- Lammy 1y agoNo, UEFI Secure Boot is UEFI Secure Boot. The fact that Microsoft exercised this ability twelve entire years ago on a platform where they thought they could get away with it makes it worse, not better.
- supportengineer 1y agoI'm surprised more huge corporations don't move towards a "Chromebook only" by default. Now you don't have to manage anything. We're all doing our work in browsers anyway.
- keyringlight 1y agoI think at some point there will gradually be a line that divides consumer type devices and Workstation with a capital W type devices. If nothing else it'll encourage the PC market to really decide for each use-case how much they value having a huge range of laptop or pre-built configurations or being able to assemble from parts. There's a lot of momentum in the PC mindset, but I also think a lot of people would be satisfied with less 'personal' so long as they were able to identify what they need and match it to capabilities of a model. 20 years ago the idea of a phone/table as the personal computer for most people and not a PC/laptop would be silly, yet here we are
- immibis 1y agoIs there not one already? Having a laptop or desktop puts you firmly in workstation category; the consumer type devices are smartphones (and they make up about 90% of all devices so we should probably stop treating mobile web pages as an afterthought).
- citizenpaul 1y agoMy experience with mobile vs desktop web pages is that the mobile ones are stuffed full of ads and "engagement" sinks. Not that the mobile version is second class.
- citizenpaul 1y agoIf you are issued a chromebook to me it signal that they consider you a replaceable cog. Its one of my interview questions these days. What device will I be issued? If its a chromebook I know that no matter what they say they don't really care about the postion.
- tux3 1y agoGo in the BIOS and switch it off? Certainly. Just one problem: Modern consumer BIOS interfaces are graphical and your GPU is off.
- ThePowerOfFuet 1y agoThat's not how it works; Secure Boot kicks in once EFI hands over control.
- mjg59 1y agoThe driver that initialises your plug-in GPU is shipped in flash on the card, is signed by Microsoft, and won't run unless that signature validates.
- tsimionescu 1y agoDoesn't that happen only after UEFI starts the boot process, and only if Secure Boot is enabled?
- mjg59 1y agoI don't understand what "UEFI starts the boot process" means? The firmware is what initialises the hardware. If the code needed to initialise your GPU doesn't have a trusted signature then it won't be executed, and you won't have any working graphics, so you won't have a UI to let you disable secure boot. If secure boot isn't enabled in the first place then yes this isn't a problem.
- ThePowerOfFuet 1y agoI am reticent to argue with someone of your reputation, but AFAIK UEFI can initialize a basic framebuffer (and write to it) in a standardized manner without needing any ROM on the card. https://wiki.osdev.org/GOP https://wiki.osdev.org/GOP
- mjg59 1y ago
- tpoacher 1y agoBitlocker
- mschuster91 1y ago> But when the user is the device owner? Doesn't do much. A decent Secure Boot implementation together with a BIOS/EFI password at least makes the life of US CBP or similar thugs wanting to use my devices against me much more difficult. And no, that's not an imaginary threat, certainly not under this administration which has come under fire multiple times for first detaining and then deporting random tourists.
- swagmoney1606 1y agoYou can't play many videogames if you do this, as anticheat won't let the game run unless secure boot is turned on
- a96 1y agoFor values of many being less than one in a million. Yes, the few that do are somewhat popular competitive ones, but they are very very rare in the sea of games that exist.
- xg15 1y agoEven if you can, there might be dark patterns to discourage you, such as showing a "boot screen of shame" if its turned off.
- jimmaswell 1y agoI certainly do not want old graphics cards to become ewaste for no good reason.
- tomhow 1y ago> EVERYBODY wants that! And I mean ABSOLUTELY EVERYBODY Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put asterisks* around it and it will get italicized.* https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html