Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Taking Aggressive Steps Against Linux On ARM
New submitter Microlith writes "Microsoft has updated their WHQL certification requirements for Windows 8, and placed specific restrictions on ARM platforms that will make it impossible to install non-Microsoft operating systems on ARM devices, and make it impossible to turn off or customize such security. Choice quotes from the certification include from page 116, section 20: 'On an ARM system, it is forbidden to enable Custom Mode. Only Standard Mode may be enabled' — which prevents users from customizing their security, and in section 21: 'Disabling Secure MUST NOT be possible on ARM systems' to prevent you from booting any other OSes."
There, fixed the title for you. This is a security feature.
Even the article in the summary notes that this is about Windows Phone and ARM-based notebooks, and neither are where Microsoft has a monopoly on market share. So what about if you go out and pick one of the thousands other products that has Linux or Android to begin with? In turn Microsoft severaly increases protection about boot sector malware on devices.
The funny thing is that this is exactly what Linux users have been asking for. They have been bitching about bad security of Windows, and now that Microsoft takes good and required steps to improve it, they start bitching how the security features lock out Linux. What about thinking before opening your mouth in the future? And why not bitch at Apple for locking down OS X and iPhone's too?
The most important thing is - Microsoft's OS's have minimal market share on ARM-based device. There's thousands of devices with Linux and Android, just pick one of those.
Cheers,
David E. Sell
It's only a problem if you hold a monopoly. Currently Linux and Android are more popular than Windows on ARM-based devices.
David
How is Microsoft leveraging monopoly to take over another sector? Do you have proof of this? Are they saying that vendors would not be allowed to sell other Microsoft products if they don't help their ARM-based devices take over?
As far as I can see, they haven't been leveraging their monopoly to do anything. Simply by going to another market is not leveraging monopoly.
It is nevertheless a valid comment. Microsoft doesn't have monopoly on ARM-based devices. On top of that, even Android manufacturers lock down their devices with similar technologies because it makes the devices secure. Why is Microsoft allowed to do the same, especially since it doesn't cause any monopoly issues?
In November 2010, the press reported that the rootkit has evolved to the point that it is able to bypass the mandatory kernel-mode driver signing requirement of 64-bit editions of Windows 7 by subverting the master boot record,[9] something that also makes it particularly resistant on all systems to detection and removal by anti-virus software.
No antivirus can do anything about it, and even if you re-install your OS, the malware gets re-installed too!
So how would you combat against Alureon and similar malware without protecting the core of your system where it attacks?
If user can disable it, then computer program can too. Nevertheless, it isn't even a problem because Linux and Android has majority of market share on ARM-based devices, so just choose them!
Is it too obvious to say:
Fix how it bypassed the mandatory kernel-mode driver signing requirements of 64-bit editions of Windows 7?
IE., lock down boot sector! That is exactly how Alureon bypasses it, and that is what were discussing here!
But is he wrong?
Fixing the problem: Determine how it's subverting the master boot record and FIX that.
And that is what Microsoft is doing, and it's the same every other ARM vendor does, including Apple and Google.
So basically you don't care about any of his points even while they are perfectly valid, just because he dared to post anything positive about Microsoft?
Also note that on x86, the user _is_ allowed to add another OS key. How is that?
Because in x86 land it isn't the normal. In ARM it is. Apple, Google and pretty much every other manufacturer does exactly the same. Slashdot is just bitching at this story because, gee, it's Micro$$$oft.
2. MS does not have a monopoly on ARM
--> not relevant
3. Everybody else is doing it.
--> not relevant and not true
How is that not relevant? It obviously is.
If Ubuntu let phone companies subsidize their upcoming tablet devices and in turn required that the devices are locked, would you bitch at them? Would it result in same amount of rage on Slashdot? Because I think it would go something like this "This is a good thing. Ubuntu is paying majority of the price of these devices so it is in their right. And it's good to see Ubuntu gain market share!"
They own the US government, and this is an election year.
Niether Omney nor Robama dare fuck with a company that powerful. The Justice Department prefers to target medicinal cannabis and play gunrunner in Operation Gunwalker.
What do those have in common? They are geared to undermine your rights, not Microsoft.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
They aren't spreading FUD, they are countering it.
a) only to anti-MS zelots
b) same as a
c) Much the same seems applicable about you. Actually a young child, or someone blinded by a religious take on their technology. Everyone else will apply some logic and see that the points do have validity.
d) The same could be said about all the anti-MS zelots on this thread.
* You don't need WHQL drivers to run on MS's operating systems - meaning it will run on non-restricted devices
* As the OP put it, there are major security reasons to do this, as well as anticompetative. Nobody outside of MS can honestly say which is the priority reason.
So, unless they have changed it so that WHQL certification is required for things to work, who gives a shit? COmpanies can make locked-down and non-locked down variants, depending on their customer bases desires.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).