5 ms·
> I would say that specifically with Secure Boot, Microsoft actually promoted user choice: A Windows Logo compliant PC needs to have Microsoft's root of trust i
by heavyset_go 1y ago
> I would say that specifically with Secure Boot, Microsoft actually promoted user choice: A Windows Logo compliant PC needs to have Microsoft's root of trust installed by default. Microsoft could have stopped there, but they didn't.
This was not the case with the initial rollout of Secure Boot, it was combined with locked BIOS to lock PCs so that they could only boot Windows 8 on some devices. This was the case on Windows RT ARM machines from that era.
All that has to be done today for machines to be locked down again is to flip a bit or blow an e-fuse. It's already the case on phones and tablets.
There is also a real potential for abusing TPMs or cryptographic co-processors to enforce remote attestation.
I say this as someone who agrees with your first paragraph and uses Secure Boot + TPMs on all of my machines.
- IlikeKitties 1y ago> There is also a real potential for abusing TPMs or cryptographic co-processors to enforce remote attestation. People here REALLY need to start understanding this issue. Remote Attestation is the kind of tech that if abused will end free computing over night.
- weikju 1y agos/if/when/
- heavyset_go 1y agoRemote attestation is already here with Play Protect/Integrity on Android, and Microsoft's Pluton co-processor enables the same thing
- nerdsniper 1y agoSee also: - Private Access Token [0] - Web Environment Integrity [1] among other proposals. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31751203 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31751203 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36785516 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36785516
- dataflow 1y ago> People here REALLY need to start understanding this issue. The idea that understanding is the problem feels like a fallacy. People need to upgrade hardware, and when all chips contain such functionality, consumers won't have a choice of alternatives. What you want is legislation (or a dominant competitor lacking such features, which doesn't exist).
- account42 1y agoLegislation doesn't help unless its the right legislation. After all, legislation is what is forbidding you from producing a competing x86 processor with the changes you want.
- wkat4242 1y agoAnd it's already happening in the form of Google play integrity API. Many apps already require it. It's just a matter of time before they push similar tech to the desktop. And on mobile it hurts more because many banks now require a mobile app for 2FA. Personally I think any form of attestation is evil.
- butlike 1y agoI agree. Now: "Papers, please."
- breakingcups 1y agoMicrosoft had a lot of practice with this with the recent Xbox hardware & software.
- breakingcups 1y agoThere's a reason Microsoft is aggressively deprecating "older" CPU's that work perfectly fine. Heck, I have one laptop with Windows 11 that worked great, but won't update from 22h2 to 24h2 because CPU support was dropped between versions, leaving me with only the glib suggestion from the Windows Update UI to "Buy a new device". Ironically, installing Windows 10 and activating ESU would lead to longer hardware life. Of course, I didn't. Instead, I installed Linux on that laptop too. My partner had no issues switching.
- WorldMaker 1y agoTPM wasn't the only reason older CPUs were dropped. The biggest reasons where the line in the sand Microsoft chose would not be supported in Windows 11 was Spectre/Meltdown [0] mitigation. Windows 10 added a bunch of intentional slowdowns to mitigate that disaster and people incorrectly blamed Windows 10 for being slow and not the CPUs and their CVEs. Windows 11 seems to have wanted a clean slate without needing to have any of those slowdown mitigations in the codebase and eliminate some classes of "Windows 11 is slow on my machine" complaints. I'm not sure Microsoft took the best approach. I might have opted into a "Windows 11 Slow CPU" SKU if it was marketed right. That might have been a little kinder than "all these CPUs with this awful series of bugs are trash, even though we have had a successful workaround". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectre_(security_vulnerability) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectre_(security_vulnerabilit...
- p_ing 1y agoYes, Microsoft is blocking CPUs which lack the ability for Virtualization Based Security. Given OS security is important to Microsoft (surprise, I know), enforcing VBS is a priority.
- everdev 1y agoSecurity for Microsoft...
- rightbyte 1y agoMy understanding is that Spectre etc. only is a problem if the user choses to run hostile code on their computer.
- benterix 1y ago> over night. No, I think they bend over backwards not to do it overnight because of the outcry but try to make all required changes and enforcements gradually over the years so in the end you will have no choice but there will not be any sudden change that would spark protests.
- fujigawa 1y ago> This was not the case with the initial rollout of Secure Boot, it was combined with locked BIOS to lock PCs so that they could only boot Windows 8 on some devices. This was the case on Windows RT ARM machines from that era. Okay, but, that was like 15 years ago, on some shitty first-run computers that no one bought. A failed first attempt. I've never met a single person that owned, or has ever used, a Windows RT device. The world has moved on. But oddly continues to buy bootloader-locked iPhones and Androids by the bucketful. Dwelling on the past isn't going to move us forward. Anyone pushing the "Secure Boot and TPM are evil" trope in 2025 is objectively a fool and should be ignored. Most don't even realize what a TPM does, they think it's some secret chip inserted by glowies into their computers to prevent them from running free software. No.
- maybewhenthesun 1y ago> Dwelling on the past isn't going to move us forward. Forgetting the past will make PC's as closed as phones.
- trinsic2 1y agoNormally I would agree that security measures are needed in many, but not all cases, but only if they are in complete control of the user and cannot by altered by any one organization. For-profit companies cannot be in control of these mechanisms. We have seen how they can be abused with the latest decision by Google to limit side-loading to people who identify themselves. So your take is really a misdirection from how these tools are being used against our property.
- fujigawa 1y ago> For-profit companies cannot be in control of these mechanisms. But they are not in control of Secure Boot. Microsoft runs a root CA that is pre-installed on most PCs. It could have been Verisign or someone else, but MS made sense at the time, likely because they had additional code signing expertise. You are free to delete these keys and/or install your own. If there wasn't preexisting infrastructure, Secure Boot would be DOA for most people.
- spragl 1y ago> There is also a real potential for abusing TPMs or cryptographic co-processors to enforce remote attestation. Remote attestation can be misused, yes. But why writing it as TPM is the problem? In cases where remote attestation is used for good, TPM improves the setup, if anything. I dont see the rationale for what you wrote, and am genuinely curious what it is.
- mschuster91 1y agoBecause that's what has been going on in the Android world for years and for the iPhone was the case from the start. Root your phone, even if it is just for the ability to make full backups (because that is, to this day, not a thing on Android)? Say goodbye to banking, most games, even the proposed new EU "digital identity" government wallet was supposed to enforce attestation. And everyone with a phone on the "bad vendor" list that either doesn't get Google certification from the start or gets it revoked due to sanctions? Same.
- spragl 1y agoThen you really should be angry at Apple and Google, not the hardware. The preparations for eIDAS 2.0 (the EU thing) has been heavily inspired by SSI. If they keep up the good work, and implement it properly, security and privacy will be top notch. And that is only possible by using TPM (or really SE when we talk about mobile phones). Yes, I know that eIDAS might end up not meeting the early promises. We will have to see. But in that case it will be despite the possibilities that the hardware provides, not because of them.
- Voultapher 1y agoYou can't do remote attestation without something like a TPM. Let's compare these scenarios: A) TPMs are optional and 30% of users have them. A bank is thinking about requiring remote attestation to use their services. Since they'd lock out 70% of users they decide to not do it. B) TPMs are mandatory and 90% of users have them. A bank is thinking about requiring remote attestation to use their services. Since they'd only lock out 10% of users they decide to do it. And banking is the nice example here. Refusing to serve a site if the user is using an ablocker is very much in the interest of powerful players in the space, see WEI. Every platform that has wide spread TPM adoption, namely Android and iOS have shown that they will abuse them for anti-consumer purposes sooner or later. We are talking about Microsoft here, the current and past poster child for anti-consumer decisions. I hope that explains why making TPMs blanket available introduces new risks to sovereign computing.