[Evildave]

Microsoft has announced that if computer makers wish to distribute machines with the Windows 8 compatibility logo, they will have to implement a measure called "Secure Boot." However, it is currently up for grabs whether this technology will live up to its name, or will instead earn the name Restricted Boot.

Sign the Petition to let OEMs know YOU WANT A CHOICE.
http://www.fsf.org/c...-boot/statement

This post has been edited by Evildave: 19 October 2011 - 01:27 PM

[LiveBrianD]

Whoa - I can image having the OS be signed like that being a good idea, but since linux isn't, I think you'll be able to disable it in the bios. If so, I'm fine with it, as it has security merit.

[Evildave]

No guarantee unless it is made ABUNDANTLY CLEAR to all PC manufacturers that implementing this 'signature' system in the way Microsoft intended (TO LOCK ALL PC USERS EXCLUSIVELY INTO WINDOWS) is not acceptable.

A system where the BIOS calculates a CRC based on a boot image that the user 'approves', and it then remembers it from then on would be acceptable.

Put install CD into disk.
Boot install CD, install *ANY* OS.
First time the computer boots:

WARNING: NEW BOOT IMAGE DETECTED.

DID YOU JUST INSTALL A NEW OS?

IF NOT, PLEASE INSERT YOUR SYSTEM RECOVERY MEDIA NOW AND REBOOT.

IF SO, ACCEPT AND CREATE NEW SIGNATURE? (Type YES, then press ENTER) ____

Or more simply, simply put the BIOS into an 'INSTALL OS' mode before installing an OS or writing any kind of boot loader.

Unfortunately, the overwhelming trend, especially among whole system makers like Dell, Gateway, Sony, etc., could be to simply prompt for the 'WINDOWS' Disk, because the OS is not WINDOWS, with a COPYRIGHTED signature that ONLY Microsoft is authorized to legally use.

This is what's seriously pissing off all the Linux people.

[Evildave]

BTW, you probably wouldn't be able to install 'XP' on such a system, either. It's obsolete, doesn't support 'secure boot', etc.

[LiveBrianD]

Evildave, on 19 October 2011 - 08:24 PM, said:

BTW, you probably wouldn't be able to install 'XP' on such a system, either. It's obsolete, doesn't support 'secure boot', etc.

You might have issues finding drivers on new hardware anyway. Maybe...

[Evildave]

But to have the computer just tell you, "NO!!!"?

'Driver issues' are always possible, but with 1,000 different manufacturers building PC hardware, having the BIOS just tell you to go shove it up your arse probably isn't the response you wanted to see when you get the new computer home.

[Tunz]

I think Steven Sinofsky has addressed this.
http://blogs.msdn.co...-with-uefi.aspx
But the petition is valid anyway because it will be the OEMs who can provide the "off switch" for secure boot. They are not going to lose their Win 8 certification for doing so, and they don't want to cut off any part of the market. I think they get that, so I'm not going to set my hair on fire over this.

[Evildave]

The central issue is, you can be 'compliant' with Microsoft's 'standard', while NOT allowing anything but windoze to boot.

So, let thousands of OEMs making motherboards, notebooks, desktops, etc. DECIDE whether to provide an 'off' switch for that in their BIOS settings?

Because unless 'TURN THE #@&*ING THING OFF' is part of the ABSOLUTE STANDARD, there WILL ABSOLUTELY, 100% CERTAINLY be computers that do not allow you to turn off this 'feature'.

And of course, there's still the absolutely bogus implication that an OS that doesn't have Microsoft's latest over-engineered kludge against poor OS security is 'insecure'.

Probably a fun virus payload attack will be to simply invalidate the 'secure boot' signature. Oopsie! Your computer CAN NOT BOOT until you find your windoze DVD, which is probably not conveniently available, and any windoze DVD that you can scrounge up will be a different 'edition' that can't re-activate your windoze, etc. You know, the typical 'Windoze Borked' problems with activation, etc., with a new layer to go wrong.