3 ms·

The slide the have, also says that on mobile devices it must not be possible to turn off secure boot. Which on the one hand, can probably help make them less de

The slide the have, also says that on mobile devices it must not be possible to turn off secure boot. Which on the one hand, can probably help make them less desirable to steal; but on the other hand, means no playing with non-MicroSoft OSes on those devices.

geofft 12y ago
That was true under the Windows 8 logo requirements too, if by "mobile" they mean "ARM" / "Windows RT". Honestly I'm only very slightly unhappy about that. Unlike with the IBM-compatible PC, a historically open platform, this isn't closing off a historically open platforms. The other entries in the space, like Apple's iPad, are historically very closed. And the Windows platform doesn't have anywhere near the dominance in ARM that it does on x86.
UnoriginalGuy 12y ago
Secure Boot isn't lojack, it doesn't really protect against theft or discourage it. Nothing is stopping you stealing someone's computer with Secure Boot and installing a fresh Windows on it. Secure Boot is about protecting the kernel from modification (e.g. root kits, activation cracks, and so on). It may help protect data also when combined with full disk encryption (it will make tricking you into entering your decryption key(s) into a fake/altered OS harder). It is a classic defence in depth system. I actually have nothing against Secure Boot, I just think it is too Microsoft controlled and getting a signing key too difficult (and for Microsoft to block competition too easy).
- tbrownaw 12y ago
  Nothing is stopping you stealing someone's computer with Secure Boot and installing a fresh Windows on it. Yeah, I'd been thinking that if you were stuck with what was already installed, a thief wouldn't be able to get rid of any lojak / phone-home-and-brick-yourself monitors. But you're right, secure boot by itself wouldn't provide quite that level of lockdown. :(

geofft 12y ago

That was true under the Windows 8 logo requirements too, if by "mobile" they mean "ARM" / "Windows RT". Honestly I'm only very slightly unhappy about that. Unlike with the IBM-compatible PC, a historically open platform, this isn't closing off a historically open platforms. The other entries in the space, like Apple's iPad, are historically very closed. And the Windows platform doesn't have anywhere near the dominance in ARM that it does on x86.

UnoriginalGuy 12y ago

Secure Boot isn't lojack, it doesn't really protect against theft or discourage it. Nothing is stopping you stealing someone's computer with Secure Boot and installing a fresh Windows on it. Secure Boot is about protecting the kernel from modification (e.g. root kits, activation cracks, and so on). It may help protect data also when combined with full disk encryption (it will make tricking you into entering your decryption key(s) into a fake/altered OS harder). It is a classic defence in depth system. I actually have nothing against Secure Boot, I just think it is too Microsoft controlled and getting a signing key too difficult (and for Microsoft to block competition too easy).

tbrownaw 12y ago
Nothing is stopping you stealing someone's computer with Secure Boot and installing a fresh Windows on it. Yeah, I'd been thinking that if you were stuck with what was already installed, a thief wouldn't be able to get rid of any lojak / phone-home-and-brick-yourself monitors. But you're right, secure boot by itself wouldn't provide quite that level of lockdown. :(