3 ms·

In what way has the "secure boot fiasco" actually impacted you? I read a lot about it a few years ago, but in my experience that was nothing but FUD.

dTal 13y ago
Give it time. So far the worst effect has "merely" been to introduce needless hassle and obstacles when installing non-Microsoft operating systems [1]. Microsoft's current hardware certification spec (that manufacturers tend to implement so they can put "Certified for Windows 8" on the box) requires that the user be able to switch off Secure Boot (generally taking the entirety of UEFI with it) as long as they are not on an ARM system. They could change this at any point, and unification of ARM and "PC" is a current trend at Microsoft of which the move to Secure Boot on both platforms is already a part. Forgive me, but I'm not ready to accept Microsoft having me by the balls just because they haven't clenched their fist yet. Secure Boot's purported threat model is a solution looking for a problem ("boot sector viruses" in 2014?). It doesn't really make much sense to make the boot process entirely unmodifiable on the grounds that "malware might modify it". Malware might modify anything else on your system too, and you are pwned either way. So it's probably safe to assume Microsoft had a different motive. I don't think it's wise to think of it as over-and-done-with. [1] http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/9844.html?thread=328308 http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/9844.html?thread=328308
andrewflnr 13y ago
It hasn't, because I haven't yet needed to buy a new computer. But if we can only call out moral wrongs when they personally affect us, we may as well stop calling it morality at all. If you're saying it is, in fact, not prohibitively difficult to securely install an arbitrary operating system, then I would honestly be delighted to see some proof. But all I heard was that the signing keys couldn't be changed, and it was difficult to get things signed so they could be booted, and that's enough to make me angry.

dTal 13y ago

Give it time. So far the worst effect has "merely" been to introduce needless hassle and obstacles when installing non-Microsoft operating systems [1]. Microsoft's current hardware certification spec (that manufacturers tend to implement so they can put "Certified for Windows 8" on the box) requires that the user be able to switch off Secure Boot (generally taking the entirety of UEFI with it) as long as they are not on an ARM system. They could change this at any point, and unification of ARM and "PC" is a current trend at Microsoft of which the move to Secure Boot on both platforms is already a part. Forgive me, but I'm not ready to accept Microsoft having me by the balls just because they haven't clenched their fist yet. Secure Boot's purported threat model is a solution looking for a problem ("boot sector viruses" in 2014?). It doesn't really make much sense to make the boot process entirely unmodifiable on the grounds that "malware might modify it". Malware might modify anything else on your system too, and you are pwned either way. So it's probably safe to assume Microsoft had a different motive. I don't think it's wise to think of it as over-and-done-with. [1] http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/9844.html?thread=328308 http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/9844.html?thread=328308

andrewflnr 13y ago

It hasn't, because I haven't yet needed to buy a new computer. But if we can only call out moral wrongs when they personally affect us, we may as well stop calling it morality at all. If you're saying it is, in fact, not prohibitively difficult to securely install an arbitrary operating system, then I would honestly be delighted to see some proof. But all I heard was that the signing keys couldn't be changed, and it was difficult to get things signed so they could be booted, and that's enough to make me angry.