6 ms·

Linux users file EU complaint against Microsoft

82 points by recoiledsnake 14y ago

cooldeal 14y ago
EU had already previously responded to this and I believe this complaint by a "8000-strong" body is not going to change it. >The Commission is aware of the Microsoft Windows 8 security requirements. According to these requirements, in order to conform to the Windows 8 certification program, computer manufacturers (‘OEMs’) have to use Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (‘UEFI’) secure boot. >The Commission has at its disposal various legal instruments to ensure that competition is preserved in the markets. The basic provisions are contained in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) in Article 101 and 102 TFEU. >Whether there is a violation of EU competition rules depends however on a range of factual, legal and economic considerations. The Commission is currently not in possession of evidence suggesting that the Windows 8 security requirements would result in practices in violation of EU competition rules as laid down in Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. In particular, on the basis of the information currently available to the Commission it appears that the OEMs can decide to give the end users the option to disable the UEFI secure boot. >The Commission will however continue to monitor the market developments so as to ensure that competition and a level playing field are preserved amongst all market players. From http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2012-011084&language=EN http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?referen...
javipas 14y ago
Besides the previous comment from the EU, there's an article written by Matthew Garrett (developer of the Secure Boot solution at The Linux Foundation) that explains also the big difference between Secure Boot and Restricted Boot. http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/23817.html http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/23817.html That complaint is not really reasonable and is going nowhere, I think.
- mjg59 14y ago
  The Linux Foundation developed their own solution, entirely separate from mine.
recoiledsnake 14y ago
>In its 14-page complaint, Hispalinux said Windows 8 contained an "obstruction mechanism" called UEFI Secure Boot that controls the start-up of the computer and means users must seek keys from Microsoft to install another operating system. Windows 8 contains no such "obstruction mechanism". It will happily boot even if secure boot is not supported on that machine or if it's disabled. Maybe they're trying to get some free publicity with misleading hyperbole and FUD on this as the EU has already knocked down this kind of complaint before.
- benev 14y ago
  I get your point, but I think that it's not quite right. If you get a computer with Win 8 pre-installed, it won't boot if you turn off Secure Boot. However, I don't have a Win 8 machine on hand to confirm this. Of course, if you have the install discs, you could then re-install it with Secure Boot disabled, but that's a significant extra step (and you can only do it if your OEM supplied you with the discs).
  - recoiledsnake 14y ago
    > If you get a computer with Win 8 pre-installed, it won't boot if you turn off Secure Boot. No, that's not true, it will continue to boot. There's just too much misleading information being spread.
IvarTJ 14y ago
Can someone explain why bricking an infected computer is a good idea? I might understand it if the boot sequence just gives a warning with information, suggestions and a "Don't warn me again" option, but from what I hear it just makes the machine unusable.
- cooldeal 14y ago
  This is because the primary goal of most malware writers is not to make the machine unusable, but to hide the malware and use the machine to spam, DDoS, collect site and bank credentials etc. Also, you can go and turn secure boot off to boot your infected machine, so it's not really bricked or unusable.
- DanBC 14y ago
  Windows 8 is meant to be used by people who don't know much about computers. Thus, the approach they take might not fit skilled users. Ideally the novice user will take their machine to a clueful technician who will wipe the drives and reinstall the OS, and then offer to set up firewalls and anti virus software. Unfortunately novice users often do not back up their data so wiping the drive is unpopular. And there are many technicians who think that malware removal without wiping the drives is acceptable.
kunai 14y ago
Wait... Didn't Linus say Secure Boot wasn't a problem and that it was actually a good thing? Or am I just remembering things wrong? http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/06/microsoft-windows8-secure-boot/ http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/06/microsoft-windo...
- pslam 14y ago
  Wired is selectively quoting and interpreting. Linus is talking in generalities and unfortunately that means he's missing the specific, immediate problem that a lot of people are going to face. Secure Boot in itself isn't necessarily a problem, and is a good thing in that it can actually increase security. However, if you don't have the ability to install your own certificate (or get a leaf cert), then it completely prevents you from installing your own OS. If a PC comes with only Microsoft's cert installed, then you can only install Microsoft software. If the OS refuses to boot when you disable Secure Boot, then you can't dual boot the pre-installed OS, and it takes a lot of effort to get things working again. Plus, you lose Secure Boot for both OS's. This is all a stupid mess which could have been solved by allowing users to install their own certificates - and I don't mean the Fedora solution of also having their cert installed and then handing Fedora a lot of money for a leaf.
  - cooldeal 14y ago
    >If the OS refuses to boot when you disable Secure Boot, then you can't dual boot the pre-installed OS, and it takes a lot of effort to get things working again. What? Which OS refuses to boot when you disable Secure Boot? >This is all a stupid mess which could have been solved by allowing users to install their own certificates Exactly which UEFI Secure Boot does. Here's a guide. http://blog.hansenpartnership.com/owning-your-windows-8-uefi-platform/ http://blog.hansenpartnership.com/owning-your-windows-8-uefi...
    - pslam 14y ago
      > What? Which OS refuses to boot when you disable Secure Boot? The one which was installed with secure boot enabled. My reading is the OS will prevent forward progress when it notices secure boot was bypassed when it expected it to be on. Never tried this myself - I'm likely misinformed. > Exactly which UEFI Secure Boot does. And apparently optional, and not something every machine implements, which was the subject of a LOT of stories a year back. Did this ever get resolved as being mandatory, and/or did all UEFI providers figure it was best practice in the end?
alexsilver 14y ago
Whenever these complaints/lawsuits come up, I always wonder why Apple is never part of them...
- mkr-hn 14y ago
  Apple is off in its own hardware and software ecosystem, so the potential for widespread harm is small. Microsoft has clout with the people who make the hardware most people use, so there's considerable potential for damage depending on how Microsoft's will is implemented.
  - scholia 14y ago
    Apple has plenty of potential for harm via its iPhone and iPad ranges, both of which are locked down.... However, neither has a monopoly maket share.
    - sounds 14y ago
      Exactly! Why aren't people complaining about Samsung locking their phones? (both carrier locks and locking the root account) Ok, maybe the best solution is to vote with your wallet. It worked for me :)
- pjmlp 14y ago
  Because Mac OS X is UNIX based and for some geeks it seems to excuse them from their behaviour.
- lmm 14y ago
  Apple doesn't sell MacOS to be installed on computers not bought from them (in fact they deliberately make it hard for people to do that) so I don't see how this issue would affect them.
- mike-cardwell 14y ago
  Because they're not a monopoly, and because they haven't been convicted of abusing their monopoly power.
scholia 14y ago
Which illustrates that, despite what you might think, it's possible to be Linux user and stupid.
neya 14y ago
From the article: Microsoft's relations with the EU executive have been tense since 2004, when the EU found that the company had abused its market leader position by tying Windows Media Player to the Windows software package. But Microsoft broke its 2009 pledge and was fined 561 million euros by the EU Commission on March 6 for failing to offer users a choice of web browser. I'm no Microsoft fanboi, but, let's put it this way - I develop my own operating system, I develop my own browser, I develop my own media player. And I decide to bundle it/promote it along with an operating system I DESIGNED and DEVELOPED. What the fuck seems to be the problem with that? I'm not limiting your ability in anyway - You can still install any other browser/media player you like and you can remove the ones I've provided too, just like any other.. Come on dudes, if I don't have the freedom to bundle MY software the way I like, then how is it fair? It's like saying I can't bundle a headphone for an Mp3 player I manufactured and the user should buy what he/she wants. If I got something wrong here, please enlighten me..
- rajanikanthr 14y ago
  stupidity of EU at peaks.. thats it
  - octix 14y ago
    Of course :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
  - prudhvis 14y ago
    Have you tried to buy an UEFI enabled PC in the EU without having to deal with Microsoft?. I dont think so.
- jerf 14y ago
  Monopolists are held to different standards, on purpose, for a variety of reasons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly (in particular see the Law section) This is indeed specifically a case in which it may be illegal for Microsoft to do something even as it is legal for Apple to do the same thing, because one is(/was) a monopoly and the other is not.
VMG 14y ago
As an European linux user, I'm not happy about the government meddling in the hardware or software business, even if it is to my perceived benefit. Just stay out of it and let the customers decide.
- glogla 14y ago
  That would be hard, if Microsoft makes arrangement for you not to be able to install anything that's not Windows on any laptop ever. Or even on any non-crappy laptop ever.
  - VMG 14y ago
    How? It couldn't possibly pay off everybody.
- zenbowman 14y ago
  Agreed. I use Linux at home, but I think the government should keep its hands far, far away from regulating tech.
nivla 14y ago
My comment from another thread posted earlier with the same news that happened to disappear from the front page[1]: Alright this is getting ridiculous, we aren't living in the 90s anymore and we should be encouraging healthy competition. We now have better alternatives like Macbooks, Chromebooks etc. I can't buy into the reason that Microsoft issued secure boot only to undermine Linux. Infact, Microsoft requires all x86 Windows 8 machines to be able to turn off secure boot and/or add their own keys. This also applies for their own manufactured Surface x86 tablets. I am really looking forward to something like secure boot. Why? Imagine using Truecrypt to encrypt your entire hard drive with 3 layers encryption, and only to defeated by a pesky 10kb keylogging bootloader malware. So unless someone has an alternative solution to this, I am sticking up for secure boot and the ability to add my own keys. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5446148 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5446148

82 points by recoiledsnake 14y ago

EU had already previously responded to this and I believe this complaint by a "8000-strong" body is not going to change it. >The Commission is aware of the Microsoft Windows 8 security requirements. According to these requirements, in order to conform to the Windows 8 certification program, computer manufacturers (‘OEMs’) have to use Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (‘UEFI’) secure boot. >The Commission has at its disposal various legal instruments to ensure that competition is preserved in the markets. The basic provisions are contained in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) in Article 101 and 102 TFEU. >Whether there is a violation of EU competition rules depends however on a range of factual, legal and economic considerations. The Commission is currently not in possession of evidence suggesting that the Windows 8 security requirements would result in practices in violation of EU competition rules as laid down in Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. In particular, on the basis of the information currently available to the Commission it appears that the OEMs can decide to give the end users the option to disable the UEFI secure boot. >The Commission will however continue to monitor the market developments so as to ensure that competition and a level playing field are preserved amongst all market players. From http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2012-011084&language=EN http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?referen...

javipas 14y ago

Besides the previous comment from the EU, there's an article written by Matthew Garrett (developer of the Secure Boot solution at The Linux Foundation) that explains also the big difference between Secure Boot and Restricted Boot. http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/23817.html http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/23817.html That complaint is not really reasonable and is going nowhere, I think.

mjg59 14y ago
The Linux Foundation developed their own solution, entirely separate from mine.

recoiledsnake 14y ago

>In its 14-page complaint, Hispalinux said Windows 8 contained an "obstruction mechanism" called UEFI Secure Boot that controls the start-up of the computer and means users must seek keys from Microsoft to install another operating system. Windows 8 contains no such "obstruction mechanism". It will happily boot even if secure boot is not supported on that machine or if it's disabled. Maybe they're trying to get some free publicity with misleading hyperbole and FUD on this as the EU has already knocked down this kind of complaint before.

benev 14y ago
I get your point, but I think that it's not quite right. If you get a computer with Win 8 pre-installed, it won't boot if you turn off Secure Boot. However, I don't have a Win 8 machine on hand to confirm this. Of course, if you have the install discs, you could then re-install it with Secure Boot disabled, but that's a significant extra step (and you can only do it if your OEM supplied you with the discs).
- recoiledsnake 14y ago
  > If you get a computer with Win 8 pre-installed, it won't boot if you turn off Secure Boot. No, that's not true, it will continue to boot. There's just too much misleading information being spread.

IvarTJ 14y ago

Can someone explain why bricking an infected computer is a good idea? I might understand it if the boot sequence just gives a warning with information, suggestions and a "Don't warn me again" option, but from what I hear it just makes the machine unusable.

cooldeal 14y ago
This is because the primary goal of most malware writers is not to make the machine unusable, but to hide the malware and use the machine to spam, DDoS, collect site and bank credentials etc. Also, you can go and turn secure boot off to boot your infected machine, so it's not really bricked or unusable.
DanBC 14y ago
Windows 8 is meant to be used by people who don't know much about computers. Thus, the approach they take might not fit skilled users. Ideally the novice user will take their machine to a clueful technician who will wipe the drives and reinstall the OS, and then offer to set up firewalls and anti virus software. Unfortunately novice users often do not back up their data so wiping the drive is unpopular. And there are many technicians who think that malware removal without wiping the drives is acceptable.

kunai 14y ago

Wait... Didn't Linus say Secure Boot wasn't a problem and that it was actually a good thing? Or am I just remembering things wrong? http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/06/microsoft-windows8-secure-boot/ http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/06/microsoft-windo...

pslam 14y ago
Wired is selectively quoting and interpreting. Linus is talking in generalities and unfortunately that means he's missing the specific, immediate problem that a lot of people are going to face. Secure Boot in itself isn't necessarily a problem, and is a good thing in that it can actually increase security. However, if you don't have the ability to install your own certificate (or get a leaf cert), then it completely prevents you from installing your own OS. If a PC comes with only Microsoft's cert installed, then you can only install Microsoft software. If the OS refuses to boot when you disable Secure Boot, then you can't dual boot the pre-installed OS, and it takes a lot of effort to get things working again. Plus, you lose Secure Boot for both OS's. This is all a stupid mess which could have been solved by allowing users to install their own certificates - and I don't mean the Fedora solution of also having their cert installed and then handing Fedora a lot of money for a leaf.
- cooldeal 14y ago
  >If the OS refuses to boot when you disable Secure Boot, then you can't dual boot the pre-installed OS, and it takes a lot of effort to get things working again. What? Which OS refuses to boot when you disable Secure Boot? >This is all a stupid mess which could have been solved by allowing users to install their own certificates Exactly which UEFI Secure Boot does. Here's a guide. http://blog.hansenpartnership.com/owning-your-windows-8-uefi-platform/ http://blog.hansenpartnership.com/owning-your-windows-8-uefi...
  - pslam 14y ago
    > What? Which OS refuses to boot when you disable Secure Boot? The one which was installed with secure boot enabled. My reading is the OS will prevent forward progress when it notices secure boot was bypassed when it expected it to be on. Never tried this myself - I'm likely misinformed. > Exactly which UEFI Secure Boot does. And apparently optional, and not something every machine implements, which was the subject of a LOT of stories a year back. Did this ever get resolved as being mandatory, and/or did all UEFI providers figure it was best practice in the end?

alexsilver 14y ago

Whenever these complaints/lawsuits come up, I always wonder why Apple is never part of them...

mkr-hn 14y ago
Apple is off in its own hardware and software ecosystem, so the potential for widespread harm is small. Microsoft has clout with the people who make the hardware most people use, so there's considerable potential for damage depending on how Microsoft's will is implemented.
- scholia 14y ago
  Apple has plenty of potential for harm via its iPhone and iPad ranges, both of which are locked down.... However, neither has a monopoly maket share.
  - sounds 14y ago
    Exactly! Why aren't people complaining about Samsung locking their phones? (both carrier locks and locking the root account) Ok, maybe the best solution is to vote with your wallet. It worked for me :)
pjmlp 14y ago
Because Mac OS X is UNIX based and for some geeks it seems to excuse them from their behaviour.
lmm 14y ago
Apple doesn't sell MacOS to be installed on computers not bought from them (in fact they deliberately make it hard for people to do that) so I don't see how this issue would affect them.
mike-cardwell 14y ago
Because they're not a monopoly, and because they haven't been convicted of abusing their monopoly power.

scholia 14y ago

Which illustrates that, despite what you might think, it's possible to be Linux user and stupid.

neya 14y ago

From the article: Microsoft's relations with the EU executive have been tense since 2004, when the EU found that the company had abused its market leader position by tying Windows Media Player to the Windows software package. But Microsoft broke its 2009 pledge and was fined 561 million euros by the EU Commission on March 6 for failing to offer users a choice of web browser. I'm no Microsoft fanboi, but, let's put it this way - I develop my own operating system, I develop my own browser, I develop my own media player. And I decide to bundle it/promote it along with an operating system I DESIGNED and DEVELOPED. What the fuck seems to be the problem with that? I'm not limiting your ability in anyway - You can still install any other browser/media player you like and you can remove the ones I've provided too, just like any other.. Come on dudes, if I don't have the freedom to bundle MY software the way I like, then how is it fair? It's like saying I can't bundle a headphone for an Mp3 player I manufactured and the user should buy what he/she wants. If I got something wrong here, please enlighten me..

rajanikanthr 14y ago
stupidity of EU at peaks.. thats it
- octix 14y ago
  Of course :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
- prudhvis 14y ago
  Have you tried to buy an UEFI enabled PC in the EU without having to deal with Microsoft?. I dont think so.
jerf 14y ago
Monopolists are held to different standards, on purpose, for a variety of reasons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly (in particular see the Law section) This is indeed specifically a case in which it may be illegal for Microsoft to do something even as it is legal for Apple to do the same thing, because one is(/was) a monopoly and the other is not.

VMG 14y ago

As an European linux user, I'm not happy about the government meddling in the hardware or software business, even if it is to my perceived benefit. Just stay out of it and let the customers decide.

glogla 14y ago
That would be hard, if Microsoft makes arrangement for you not to be able to install anything that's not Windows on any laptop ever. Or even on any non-crappy laptop ever.
- VMG 14y ago
  How? It couldn't possibly pay off everybody.
zenbowman 14y ago
Agreed. I use Linux at home, but I think the government should keep its hands far, far away from regulating tech.

nivla 14y ago

My comment from another thread posted earlier with the same news that happened to disappear from the front page[1]: Alright this is getting ridiculous, we aren't living in the 90s anymore and we should be encouraging healthy competition. We now have better alternatives like Macbooks, Chromebooks etc. I can't buy into the reason that Microsoft issued secure boot only to undermine Linux. Infact, Microsoft requires all x86 Windows 8 machines to be able to turn off secure boot and/or add their own keys. This also applies for their own manufactured Surface x86 tablets. I am really looking forward to something like secure boot. Why? Imagine using Truecrypt to encrypt your entire hard drive with 3 layers encryption, and only to defeated by a pesky 10kb keylogging bootloader malware. So unless someone has an alternative solution to this, I am sticking up for secure boot and the ability to add my own keys. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5446148 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5446148