Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Taking Over the BIOS
dtjohnson writes "According to this story,
Microsoft has entered into an agreement with BIOS maker Phoenix
Technologies to integrate the BIOS with Windows. This has the
potential to turn PCs into Windows-only machines and also could result
in widespread incorporation of Digital Rights Management (DRM)
technology into new PCs. It looks like Microsoft is beginning to
flex their marketplace monopoly muscles again, after taking a couple of
years off."
Looks like we need to start checking to be sure our next motherboard's flash can be reprogrammed with LinuxBIOS.
With any other company I would hold off before passing judgement. However, Microsoft's long history of abuses makes it only natural to assume they WILL implement a windows-only BIOS. I'll take this one step further. Expect a future version of Windows to REQUIRE this BIOS, giving Microsoft an even tighter lock on the market.
-- Will program for bandwidth
"The BIOS would also allow better control of unauthorised devices connected to a system, Microsoft said."
Why is a protection against "unauthorized devices" suddenly necessary on BIOS-level? Has anyone even been victim of a device that should really have been "unauthorized" (whatever that means in this case) that has been connected to a PC? It sounds like they're talking about hardware, and that's what's puzzling me. Are Microsoft telling us that future devices might be set as "unauthorized" because they don't fulfill Microsoft's demands and standards for an authorized device, or what?
Are Microsoft's customers saying "we should be able to protect ourself against unauthorized hardware" (I'm not hearing anyone), or are Microsoft just trying to shove a new feature down their throats because they need it for their plans?
"Phoenix's Core System Software (CSS) is a next-generation BIOS with a more sophisticated integration of operating system and hardware, for example making it easier for system administrators to remotely monitor the hardware configurations of their systems."
As with all computer software, complexity increases the chance of bugs and often also security exploits. How can Microsoft and Phoenix assure these "enhancements" to the BIOS don't do this? They can't? Well, then we might have an interesting future with really messy exploits ahead (with potential for viruses to gain direct hardware access and control), and also BIOS crashes due to the added complexity.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I think it's still too early to tell if this is a good or a bad thing. It all depends on how its implemented.
If Microsoft uses it to let companies build "Windows only" PCs or to enforce their form of DRM, then I suspect most I.T. managers and staff will realize it's *NOT* a good thing.
(Even if I work for a company that runs all Windows products on the desktop today, that doesn't mean I'd prefer products that don't let me have any other alternatives.) As computers age, they tend to become good candidates for alternate OS's - even in environments using strictly Windows on the user desktops. (If you're not going to elminiate your current crop of dated Pentium 1 and 2 systems, for example, they still make good Linux web servers or print servers. They also make good pseudo thin clients running the Citrix ICA connector. (You can still do that even under plain old MS-DOS, with some limitations, and serve Windows 2000 or XP desktops to an old 486.)
All kidding aside... I write BIOS code for a living, and this scares the crap out of me. What Microsoft wants is to basically eliminate the BIOS, except for the jump to the OS code (the "int 19" above). Windows already does just about everything that we do in the BIOS, like PCI device enumeration, etc...
No doubt, this would make Microsoft's life a lot more simple, but I think it would give them too much control -- way too much. DRM would just be the start of it.
I wonder what the EFI proponents (Intel) think about this deal...
they don't BLOCK the booting of OS 9. The ability to boot OS 9 was holding back the hardware development so they scrapped that ability. It's not like they said "ok, let's fuck the users of new machines that wish to use OS 9". they just thought that better hardware was more important than backwards compatibility with an obsolete operating system
"Microsoft said integration should mean simpler and more reliable computers."
I cant believe in the face of every virus MS has been responsible for spreading or allowing to spread due to crappy code they think a BIOS with MS system calls in it wont be a problem.
I can see the next ms.blaster worm that wipes your bios requireing you to replace the ROM.
Actually the OS9 restriction is at the OS Level. Apple simply didn't write a new System Enabler for the latest revision of their core chipsets. without that, OS 9 can't boot on the new Hardware.
This was done to forcibly EOL OS 9.2.2
"You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
And thus illegal to reverse engineer?
Yeah, it's like IBM all over again... except that this time the law says that no one could reverse engineer a way out of the monopoly lock-in!
Quoth he
"It's all academic anyway..."