Slashdot Mirror
Dual Boot Not Trusted, Rejected By Vista SP1
Alsee writes "Welcome to our first real taste of Trusted Computing: With Vista Enterprise and Vista Ultimate, Service Pack 1 refuses to install on dual boot systems. Trusted Computing is one of the many things that got cut from Vista, but traces of it remain in BitLocker, and that is the problem. The Service Pack patch to your system will invalidate your Trust chain if you are not running the Microsoft-approved Microsoft-trusted boot loader, or if you make other similar unapproved modifications to your system.
The Trust chip (the TPM) will then refuse to give you your key to unlock your own hard drive. If you are not running BitLocker then a workaround is available: Switch back to Microsoft's Vista-only boot mode, install the Service Pack, then reapply your dual boot loader. If you are running BitLocker, or if Microsoft resumes implementing Trusted Computing, then you are S.O.L."
What happens on systems without a TPM?
Dual boot systems generally aren't a pain to setup (unless you load Windows second and it overwrites your boot sector). Dual boots are well documented and many people know to load Windows first and then load Linux second and replace the boot sector with LILO or GRUB so you can boot into your choice. It's only Windows that doesn't give choice (as per usual).
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Does one of the more popular Vista cracks not rely on booting Grub4Dos to load a bit of code to patch the kernel after boot?
I am thinking this will be affect the crack.
Before anyone says it, no, I am not running a pirate version of Vista, so I cannot check. In fact... not running any version of Vista, joy!
Has anyone tried this with Boot Camp? I had no problems with Mac OS X and FileVault dual-booting with either XP SP2 or Vista base.
It's only Windows that doesn't give choice
I have heard that is a feature that we pay extra for.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
In which case you can no longer trust linux.
Good thing I'm running Mojave and not Vista.
MABASPLOOM!
So... yeah. Anyone technical enough to change their bootloader should know how to put it back temporarily so it can get updated.
If you are running BitLocker, or if Microsoft resumes implementing Trusted Computing, then you are S.O.L.
I thought that was the entire point of BitLocker - don't unlock things unless you know that you're not running on top of some evil VM.
I'm hoping some joker with the next viable vista virus uses it to trigger trusted computing into locking machines.
Lets see vista's adoption rate when word gets out it bricks your entire system if you get a virus.
If you are using BitLocker then you want your data to be secure. There are probably ways that a compromised boot loader can allow an attacker access to your data. Vista closes this security hole by requiring the boot loader to be a cryptographically signed binary that it trusts. If it didn't, this story would instead be "Vista BitLocker encryption not secure on dual boot systems".
That being said, there should be a way to register other trusted signature keys in Vista to allow 3rd party boot loaders. I don't know if there is or not, but there should be.
no, you just have to have a version of Vista that supports BitLocker, whether it is on or off. Enterpise and ultimate are the only versions that support BL, so they are the ones that need the KB which is prerequisite to SP1 install (because SP1 upgrades some bitlocker features). Never Trust Trustworthy computing. it hasn't earned it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This *may* be a corner case as most TPM's were shipped in the disabled state back when XP was still shipping.
Instead, how about testing the open source BIOS stack? Most of you have an unused box of recent vintage and I'm sure the projects can use the feedback.
FYI: An open sourced bios is an Achilles heel for Microsoft. Mobo OEM's will **jump** on a Free bios because it saves them money and elminating TPM saves them much more money.
Get involved!!
http://www.coreboot.org/Welcome_to_coreboot
http://openbios.info/Welcome_to_OpenBIOS
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
c:\> FDISK /MBR /dev/hda1
Out of Memory
c:\> format c:
Out of Disk Space
c:\> edlin config.sys
File not found
c:\> set PROMPT=$
$ mke2fs
Vista AND Linux ... aren't these something like matter and anti-matter ?
Install on the same drive and the universe implodes !
I thought it was: Shit Out of Luck
which is not in your list.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Vista's security chain works as designed and intended, preventing from you to inject an untrusted bootloader into the bootstrap. Isn't that what we -want- from our security systems? This isnt' a case of "Microsoft" holding our data hostage, this is a case of our own security policies WORKING.
If I were to be running Linux, with equivalent protection, I'd be right pissed if it could be trivially rootkitted/bypassed by swapping in a malicious bootloader.
The ONLY flaw I see in the entire Vista/TPM system is that users don't seem to have a way of manually trusting things they genuinely want to trust. If it hasn't been blessed by MS its not trusted -- that's a fine policy for general users, but if I, as the hardware want to trust a specific bit of code (e.g. the linux boot loader) then I should be able to manually sign it somehow, and add my personal key to my personal install of Vista. And then the grub bootloader I signed will be trusted on my (and only my) PC.
All the 'chatter on the internets' is currently centered around how to disable UAC, how to disable driver signing, how to go back to running windows as insecurely as possible. i would prefer to see the discussion take a more intelligent direction -- how to obtain keys/certificates, how to add them to Vista's chain of trust on a per PC or per domain basis, and how how sign code with them.
Signed drivers are a FANTASTIC idea. not being able to sign drivers myself for my own hardware is EVIL. But MS --does-- have programs in place to let you sign code with 'development drivers' which are designed to only be valid on your PC... its just that most of the discussion surround the issue is how to disable it, and how evil MS for deciding what is blessed and what is not.
I mean, take Stallman, even -he- who wrote the GPLv3 in part to counter DRM isn't against code signing. He just requires that the keys necessary to sign code be included, so the owner of the hardware and user of GPLv3 code can sign it, and thereby be free to make modifications and excercise all the freedoms intended by the gpl.
I have Vista Enterprise on a dual boot laptop with a TPM that I have never enabled. Installing SP1 did nothing adverse to the dual boot capability.
Does anyone else remember when Quicken a few years ago would overwrite the MBR or something like that, and break dual-boot systems?
What would that do in this case? Brick windows until reinstall?
I thought it was bad of Microsoft to intentionally not read Mac floppy disks. I feel the dual-boot issues (minus BitLocker security issues in this specific case) with windows and linux (or any other OS) are just another example of that same mentality: Make it difficult to work with other systems, to try and keep people locked into the MS trash can for as long as possible.
Don't steal. The government hates competition.
I won't use it. I just bought a laptop on Ebay, brand new, out of box, that came with the Home edition, great bargain at $421. First thing I did with it was actually start it up and say "No" on the AUP acceptance page. I immediately powered it off, put in my trust Ubuntu Hardy 64-bit install cd, wiped the disk, and installed a real operating system that will stay the fuck out of my way.
Sorry, Microsoft, but I'd call this Epic Fail. Trusted computing causes me to lose control of *my* computer. Problem is, Microsoft don't understand the definition of computer ownership.
Linux with ntfs-3g has been supporting full read/write on ntfs for some time, and works out of the box on my ubuntu hardy machine anyways.
"You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
(I, however, use the Windows boot loader.)
Two words: filesystem support.
Boot up Linux and all the stuff on your NTFS partition is read-only.
What? You know, Linux has had full NTFS Read/Write support for a while now, see :
http://www.linux-ntfs.org/
Also, ever heard about WUBI ?
jdb2
Put windows on the first hard drive, then install linux on the second hard drive. Setup grub so it chainloads the windows boot record (for one of the options), and finally make your bios boot off the second hard drive.
Then Windows is happy and ignorant of its true surroundings.
Thats how my dualboot desktop at home is setup.
Just games? There are lots of people who run windows as their primary OS (because it's what they are used to after spending 15+ years on a MS platform, or maybe because there are apps they rely on that aren't available elsewhere), and they dual boot Linux because they want to be able to hack around, learn more, and generally have fun.
Taking an interest in Linux does not automatically mean somebody will abandon Windows the next morning.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
If I read TFA correctly, you need to have been using your TPM to experience this problem?
I have not been using my TPM and I was scolded on Monday about not using TPS report coversheets. Are the two related?
Thanks, Peter Gibbons
Beware : the new Intel ICH10R has an integrated TPM.
This is by design. If you are into the secure boot stuff you'll know why.
This is not about DRM and such (but may be) but about *your* data encrypted by BitLocker (the DRM is about protecting *somebody else's* data from you - that is why it is flawed concept).
Right now there are some kinds of attacks that let you compromise the entire system right from boot (using other than approved bootloader and unsecure boot proces) puting it into hypervisor and thus being able to retrive keys and such directly from memory.
In fact I don't see any other option as to control entire boot proces. And if you wish to control it you need to use tools that support it.
So in fact it is not a Bad Thing. It could be a bad thing if you are casual-security user - but this 'casual security' is not so secure isn't it?
I bet BitLocker documentation covers that. But why bother checking? It is better to set the "secure" option to "on" and dumbly belive it.
Many desktop motherboards give the option of booting from specific hard drives. That's the option I use. I install the OS on a hard drive as if it were the only OS, then choose the hard drive while booting up. The downside is, I have to remember which of my 3 drives has which OS.
I'm running Vista Ultimate 64bit with GRUB for Ubuntu, but BitLocker is turned off. No problems here thankfully.
That's TBD. A meeting is TBA.
TTFN.
Date of article you reference: October 13, 2006
Date of KB935509 update which breaks this: January 7, 2008
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
That's nice. The Windows idea of supporting it is "go look on technet" versus
the Linux version where it's already built-in and configuration is done for
you automatically.
This precisely the stupidity that Windows trolls like to accuse Linux of
subjecting the end user to.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Refuses to boot? Vista even refuses to INSTALL on a hdd that it doesn't believe is the "first" drive. It won't tell you why, either. It just says the partition doesn't meet its "criteria". Unplug the other hard drive and try again, and all of a sudden it works. Ignorance of surroundings is REQUIRED for a Vista installation. Use the BIOS boot selector (instead of messing with GRUB) after each individual OS is installed.
> Never Trust Trustworthy computing. it hasn't earned it.
Trusted Computing.
There's a big difference between Trusted and Trustworthy. As this update proves.
right now, im running windows vista sp1 ultimate and gentoo 2008.0, booting via grub (chainloader for vista) and it works perfectly well...
why hasnt the information in this article been checked for that thing called... the truth?
portfolio
Windows allows multi-OS booting; yes, even Vista allows it. You just have to know how to do it; just like any dual boot scenario.
False. Your solution requires hackery, while many Linux distros together with most things except Vista takes care of setting up dual-boot during the installation process.
Because their customers want them to.
Using the Windows boot loader to chainload code off another partition is, AFAIK, impossible.
Besides, in Vista the nice, easy-to-modify boot.ini file is gone. It is replaced by yet another binary registry-like database. Typical Microsoft.
Trusted !=Trustworthy. In the intelligence community, a "Trusted Party" is a party that knows enough to backstab you. That is all "Trusted Computing" implies.
Our lab technicians were upgrading vISTA PC's to use the department's standard linux build. For whatever reason, the BIOS wouldn't allow the LINUX install DVD to BOOT. So they had to remove the hard disk drives out of the PC's with built-in TRUSTED SECURITY BIOS'S, pop them into an older untrusted XP system, and then install the linux build and put the hard disk drive pack in again. IT's a pain, but if OS vendors are going to install security measures without consulting their users, this is what is going to happen. Everyone is going to think of ways of getting around these "security measures".
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Never name a piece of spacegoing hardware anything that rhymes with "trouble".
Also, never trust any technology that rhymes with "busted".
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I have Vista Enterprise in a dual-boot laptop with TPM and grub as the primary boot loader, and SP1 installed without any problems at all, and never altered the boot loader. It's 64-bit Vista, which is typically even more stringent with the code checks than 32-bit.
Were Microsoft not attaching it to a KB article, I'd have called it FUD, but I will say that I have not experienced it at all.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
http://port25.technet.com/archive/2006/10/13/Using-Vista_2700_s-Boot-Manager-to-Boot-Linux-and-Dual-Booting-with-BitLocker-Protection-with-TPM-Support.aspx
Software like Vista Ultimate with BitLocker is aimed at the corporate environment. If I'm a network admin, I don't want some jack hole dual-booting anything on my network. He doesn't need a Linux partition on his workstation. I might want laptops with TPM and BitLocker for the sales staff so that when they get drunk and lose their laptops with the customer list on it, I can rest relatively soundly knowing that the data is secure.
It is obvious that Microsoft does not care about the individual end user who wants complete control over their computer. That is okay with me. Maybe I've been drinking too much of the Kool Aid but I'm happy with HP hardware running a Microsoft OS. I like the fact that they make it a complete PITA for the end user to do anything to their workstation. It makes my job easier. 95% of the corporate computing world can get by with an office suite, a web browser and access to a couple of custom apps (financial, inventory, manufacturing, and what not). They don't need to be playing stolen mp3s that they got from Pirate Bay, watching DVDs on their lunch breaks, or dual-booting their damn desktops.
Where are all the gripes about how Server 2003 sucks? How about the gripes about IIS6 getting owned all over the place? They aren't there because Microsoft is focusing their attention where they need to focus it... on the administrators responsible for hundreds and thousands of workstations and servers. Does anyone really think that the folks at Microsoft stay up late at night wringing their hands over corporation versions of their workstation software not dual-booting a third party OS? Seriously guys... what portion of the Vista Ultimate/Enterprise user base do you think is negatively impacted by the change? 1%? 3%? I'm not talking about the developers who need ten thousand OSes on their machines "for development purposes." I'm talking about the cubicle drones who work 8-5 running a couple of applications.
I can find no way to get my application X added to a trust chain and thereby be trusted and usable. If Microsoft has a trust chain, then since they are a monopoly they should be required to accept trust requests and add them if they meet valid requirements for trust.
In other words the GRUB developers should be able to get a trust certificate so that windows boot loader accepts it as trusted, but I can't find out how to even get one.