3 ms·
Why does Microsoft have to be involved in the signing process? After all, you're not buying the computer from them. Can't there be some sort of independent si
by gnosis 14y ago
Why does Microsoft have to be involved in the signing process? After all, you're not buying the computer from them.
Can't there be some sort of independent signing authority? In fact, why couldn't the user just sign and install his own code without involving any third party at all?
This whole "secure boot" system seems really poorly conceived, unless its purpose is to take power away from the user who owns the computer and give it to a central authority.
- mjg59 14y agoThere could be an independent signing authority providing that (a) they could provide some incentive to all hardware vendors to ship their keys and (b) there was someone actually competent and willing to be that independent signing authority. For Microsoft, this is just an extension of the Windows driver signing program - they already had most of the infrastructure in place, so there was little additional expense involved in handling Secure Boot as well. And Microsoft certainly have the means to "encourage" vendors to ship with their keys, since they can withhold the Windows logo program funding from vendors otherwise.
- yuhong 14y agoI suggested on twitter to just transfer Microsoft's keys if possible.
- mjg59 14y agoThere's still the cost of managing it (you're looking at $millions) - it's something that various parties have looked into, and then decided against. It's also unclear that having a third-party holder would actually be any better. So far Microsoft have behaved far more reasonably than you might expect, and what problems there have been can be chalked up to large company rather than malice. I understand why people don't want to trust Microsoft, but I don't currently see any evidence that they're misusing their powers here.