Red Hat Will Pay Microsoft To Get Past UEFI Restrictions

ToriaUru writes "Fedora is going to pay Microsoft to let them distribute a PC operating system. Microsoft is about to move from effectively owning the PC hardware platform to literally owning it. Once Windows 8 is released, hardware manufacturers will be forced to ship machines that refuse to run any software that is not explicitly approved by Microsoft — and that includes competing operating systems like Linux. Technically Fedora didn't have to go down this path. But, as this article explains, they are between a rock and a hard place: if they didn't pay Microsoft to let them onto the PC platform, they would have to explain to their potential users how to mess with firmware settings just to install the OS. How long before circumventing the secure boot mechanism is considered a DMCA violation and a felony?" Note that the author says this is likely, but that the entire plan is not yet "set in stone."

Comments

If microsoft controls the 'keys'

[nurb432]

How can this be legal and not an abuse of their monopoly power?

Aside from the fact you can turn it off ( for now ) it still sounds like a clear case of abuse to me and someone should be talking to an attorney about this.

Re:If microsoft controls the 'keys'

[zill]

Microsoft isn't scared of the DOJ. In the last anti-trust case Microsoft was found to have committed monopolization and tying and yet they paid exactly 0 dollars and 0 cents in fines.

Re:If microsoft controls the 'keys'

[Penguinisto]

Maybe that's why Microsoft was so eager to drop in that 'no class action' thing into their EULA.

Re:If microsoft controls the 'keys'

[sjames]

Any proper system would have the end user hold the root key for the system and they could choose (or not) to bless certs from various vendors (or just directly sign the bootloader). Of course, MS doesn't want a proper system, they want lock-in.

Re:If microsoft controls the 'keys'

[Korin43]

Maybe I should have quoted the paragraph before that too:

We explored the possibility of producing a Fedora key and encouraging hardware vendors to incorporate it, but turned it down for a couple of reasons. First, while we had a surprisingly positive response from the vendors, there was no realistic chance that we could get all of them to carry it. That would mean going back to the bad old days of scouring compatibility lists before buying hardware, and that's fundamentally user-hostile. Secondly, it would put Fedora in a privileged position. As one of the larger distributions, we have more opportunity to talk to hardware manufacturers than most distributions do. Systems with a Fedora key would boot Fedora fine, but would they boot Mandriva? Arch? Mint? Mepis? Adopting a distribution-specific key and encouraging hardware companies to adopt it would have been hostile to other distributions. We want to compete on merit, not because we have better links to OEMs.

So yes, Red Hat could have got (some) OEM vendors to carry their key, but they chose not to. Part of the reason is that they couldn't get all of them to do it, but a big part is that very few Linux vendors could do the same (probably only SUSE and Ubuntu). Whether this is just trying to make themselves look good after finding out that the other solution wasn't workable is up to interpretation, but they're right -- getting every Linux vendors' key into the BIOS is unworkable for small (or free) distros.

Of course there won't be a generic Linux key. The entire point of a secure boot system (even a honest one) is to not run whatever some random person put up toghether on the street. That does not makes it impossible for Red Hat to have a private key.

There's no reason you couldn't create a generic Linux key, and then only sign code that meets certain standards (basically do the same thing that Microsoft is doing with their signing program). The big problem is that verifying things is complicated and expensive, so no one (except Microsoft) wants to do it.

I agree that it would be preferable for a non-Microsoft entity to be signing the Linux keys, but such an entity does not exist right now. I hope one of Red Hat's priorities is to set one up, sometimes you have to just work with what you have.

And the reason Red Had had to pay Microsoft is that the MS's proposal only permits one key, so the hardware manufacturers can either permit RH's key or MS's key, not both.

One key per signature -- as in, I can't sign a bootloader with both MS's key and Red Hat's key. I can have both keys and sign one bootloader with one and the other bootloader with the other. They can -- and some vendors are willing to -- allow both MS and Red Hat's keys. The real problem that the one-key-per-signature (or one-signature-per-binary if you prefer) situation is that you can't use secure boot without trusting the MS key, since all of the included components are signed with it.

Re:If microsoft controls the 'keys'

[Anonymous Coward]

MS doesn't control the keys; it's just that they're the ones driving the requirement so no OEM has a reason to ship a system with security enabled and not have the MS key.

The requirements for x86 hardware are that the system must ship with restrictions enabled, but the user must be allowed to disable the restrictions or add their own keys. In other words, there is nothing preventing you (the owner) from doing whatever you want with the machine. If you don't want the restrictions, simply turn them off and install whatever code you like.

The only issue is that machines with the Windows 8 logo will be required to ship with the restrictions enabled and RedHat doesn't want installation instructions that start with "disable UEFI security" or "enroll the RedHat public key".

Other options they rejected are:

1. Get all manufacturers to ship with RedHat's key in the firmware (in addition to MS's). The manufacturers had no problem with this, but there's no way they could possibly find every OEM to get them to do it, and they didn't want to be in a privileged position ("install RedHat because it's trusted by your OEM").

2. Get all Linux distros to coordinate on a single Linux key and have the OEMs add it to their hardware. This is undesirable because nobody wants to be responsible for maintaining the One True Key, and even then there would still be OEMs who don't ship with it.

In the end, the easiest thing is to pay a one-time fee of $99 to MS and have them sign a mini-bootloader that can start up grub. That doesn't sound like such a big deal to me.

Note that the issue with having only one signature on a file is unrelated. That just means a user can't realistically remove the MS key from their system because lots of drivers will be signed with it. Allowing multiple signatures on a file would not change RedHat's position.

dom

PCs turning into a closed platform...

[eagee]

...is about the only thing that might turn me into an Apple user.

Re:PCs turning into a closed platform...

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that, but Apple implemented EFI years ago, and then even helped users who wanted to install Windows or other operating systems via BootCamp.

Re:Why not hardware manufacturers?

[firewrought]

Good thing Microsoft's way includes a required option in the UEFI setup to turn off secure boot. This whole story is horribly misleading.

G'uhgh.... once again geeks confusing a technical capability with a real-world practicality. Turning off secure boot sounds bad and raises the barrier to entry for non-Microsoft OS'es. It also complicates the newbie install experience, which is something that Ubuntu, Debian, and many others have worked for years to simplify. And now they are using their monopoly position to extort tribute from a competitor.

Re:rock meets hard place

[Missing.Matter]

I am pretty sure that if a hardware manufacturer like Dell locks out Linux operating systems

If Dell wants Windows Certification it better not do this. Per the Windows Certification Requirements, page 122:

MANDATORY. On non-ARM systems, the platform MUST implement the ability for a physically present user to select between two Secure Boot modes in firmware setup: "Custom" and "Standard". Custom Mode allows for more flexibility as specified in the following:

a) It shall be possible for a physically present user to use the Custom Mode firmware setup option to modify the contents of the Secure Boot signature databases and the PK. This may be implemented by simply providing the option to clear all Secure Boot databases (PK, KEK, db, dbx) which will put the system into setup mode.

b) If the user ends up deleting the PK then, upon exiting the Custom Mode firmware setup, the system will be operating in Setup Mode with SecureBoot turned off.

c) The firmware setup shall indicate if Secure Boot is turned on, and if it is operated in Standard or Custom Mode. The firmware setup must provide an option to return from Custom to Standard Mode which restores the factory defaults.

Re:The article is wrong.

[samkass]

This has nothing to do with PCs. Nothing. Not one thing.
This is all in reference to UEFI on ARM tablets that Microsoft has partnered up with OEMs to produce to their specs SPECIFICALLY FOR: Windows 8.

Nothing has changed here, nearly all ARM systems are locked down today by OEMs.
Do any of you expect Microsoft to produce one that isn't (zune: locked down xbox: locked down)?

You are completely wrong-- what you say is the opposite of true.

This is referring to x86, not ARM. Fedora is not going to play Microsoft's game on ARM where Microsoft has little influence. But they are going to pay Microsoft a fee to get their bootloader signed for the x86 platform so they can run in the Windows8 world.

Re:Microsoft Pledges to Sell More Macs for Apple

[mystikkman]

>Overwhelmingly, if you wanted to look like you knew why-the-fuck you ought to be on stage, in front of 8,000 people, you went Mac.

Think Different.

Re:Microsoft Pledges to Sell More Macs for Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe in a perfect world, but in the enterprise, Apple is an obstacle and something to have to work around, rather than work with:

1: Can Apple get me product announcement roadmaps so I can time IT budgets to when models are released? Nope, Apple doesn't do that. IBM, HP, Oracle, and even Dell do, as long as you sign their NDA.

2: Can Apple get me flexible hardware and software GPOs? Windows's main thing is that I can manage all the thousands of users from relatively few boxes. There are very few tools for this on Mac, and they are department level, not enterprise grade.

3: Can I get TPM chips on the laptops to ensure protection of data? Nope. FileVault 2 is decent, but can be gotten around with a modified bootsector that would set aside the drive's encryption key. TPM chips stop that cold.

4: Can I get Macs without cameras due to policies? Sure, if I want Mac Minis.

5: Can Apple give me a 24/7/365 service time with a 4 hour tech on site? In the past yes, but with the death of the XServe, the best I can do is call and wait a day for a tech to wander out.

Sorry, Apple isn't enterprise grade. They know this too -- they are making their living by being a "toymaker" and selling to the consumer. I'd love it Apple could get some inroads into the enterprise, but right now, they are not interested in that market.

Re:Microsoft Pledges to Sell More Macs for Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Objections noted. Now either setup these iPads or we'll have to get somebody else.

Re:Why not hardware manufacturers?

[mcl630]

According to TFA, the money actually goes to Verisign, not Microsoft.

Re:rock meets hard place

[vux984]

I am pretty sure that if a hardware manufacturer like Dell locks out Linux operating systems

That is not the case AT all.

Its REALLY simple; linux is not being locked out of desktops.
x86 hardware shipping with win8 pre installed needs to have:
a) secure boot functionality
b) windows 8 boot signing keys
c) secure boot functionality turned on
d) and it must be possible to disable secure boot
e) and it must be possible to load additional boot signing keys

So, linux users buying dell pcs (x86) will be able to exercise option d) and disable secure boot.

They can also exercise option e) and install a linux signing key, and leave secure boot enabled.

Linux users are NOT locked out at all.

However, if I want to try Linux for the first time, I'd like stick in a live CD and boot it... I might be intimidated by having to go into bios first to disable secure boot. I'm very likely to be intimidated by having to install a signing key into bios first.

Redhat wants linux to "just work" without the user having to jump through those hoops so the ideal option would be to coordinate with all the oem manufacturers to get a "redhat" or at least "linux" signing key into the bios, so that the linux bootloaders can be signed against that. (The OEMs were fine with this, even enthusiastic... but the cost to do this is extremely high, and there would still likely be several cases where the redhat key was missing, leaving us with an inconsistent and annoying situation.

The other option was to just sign the bootloader with the microsoft key; microsoft is already working with all the OEMs, and already has all the infrastructure in place. Fedora decided to piggy-back on the microsoft key and pay to get the bootloader signed by microsoft.

Is it ideal? No. But in terms of what it does for the users of linux? Its a great thing. Fedora will "just boot" in secure boot mode. Users don't have to disable secure boot to use linux, which is a good thing. Users don't HAVE to manually install a linux key into bios to use secure boot (although they still can if they prefer not to use the microsoft signed version).

The x86 ecosystem remains truly open (in that users can manage boot signing keys themselves if they wish), and trying out linux is remains easy because it will boot with the default installed microsoft keys.

Overall its a good compromise.

Note that on arm tablets the situation is entirely different. option d and e are not available, and fedora isn't getting the software signed for that platform... if you buy a windows 8 arm device you'll have to crack it to put linux on it.

Re:Why not hardware manufacturers?

[SCPRedMage]

I'd get right on that, but I'm too busy with this Gibson that needs hacking...

Re:Microsoft Pledges to Sell More Macs for Apple

[Miamicanes]

> You're right, this boneheaded move by Microsoft is the best help they could possibly give for Linux on the desktop.
> Of course, that just not let Microsoft off the hook for antitrust violations, specifically abusing its market power.
> I can smell a new EU action on the the way, at the very least.

Unless I'm misunderstanding UEFI, that's not quite right. Contrary to the headline-hype, I believe Microsoft's OTHER explicit requirement for certification is that end users must be furnished with a way to disable it that's impossible to do by mistake, but entirely possible to do voluntarily. For example, flip a DIP switch, place or pull a jumper, enter a 32-character encryption code printed on a tiny sticker permanently affixed to the motherboard, etc.

Put another way, the UEFI rules won't stop a single Slashdot user from using Linux. Redhat is paying Microsoft for explicit approval so it can sell Redhat Linux to the OTHER potential Linux users who don't WANT to go through that much trouble to unlock their PC.

I'm sure Microsoft's motives with UEFI aren't entirely pure & MUST be scrutinized constantly, but so far, they've played everything by the book. They've guaranteed that we'll get a copy of the keys to our own systems, even if we'll have to get our hands slightly dirty to actually USE them.

Truth be told, I fear Microsoft less than the possibility of TiVO-ized Linux. God forbid, if someone decided to start giving away free laptops that are bootloader-locked to an Ubuntu variant and have advertising & "analytics" baked into the kernel & network stack, and eventually induce others to do the same thing, we're screwed. By 2020, we'll be in a position where a "free" PC hardwired to ad-supported Linux is "free", but a "non-free" "unlocked" PC costs $2,000... and can't play rented movies, run half the commercial applications out there, or access some paranoid bank web sites because it it's "untrusted". *THAT* is the scenario we have to fight like crazy and ensure never happens.

For the most part, Microsoft DOES behave itself in public. It might be grudgingly-good behavior, and it probably has plenty of impure thoughts, but as long as the EU and US are keeping an eye on it, it's unlikely to try anything blatant that would give it a permanent "hard" monopoly over x86 computing architecture.

As long as anybody can download Ubuntu and install it over a "free" copy of Windows, Microsoft is legally off the hook (in the US, at least), regardless of how few people actually *do* it. Microsoft would have to be completely *insane* to give up that magic "See, we aren't a real monopoly after all because end users can theoretically install Linux!" get-out-of-jail-free card. Linux is USEFUL to them. In the phone arena, Linux is practically a cash cow for Microsoft... they make more in royalties from the sale of an Android phone than they do in licensing fees when a phone running Windows gets sold.

Re:Why not hardware manufacturers?

[Man On Pink Corner]

So I'm sorry but FUD is FUD and this is FUD

No, this is a classic slippery slope. In the UEFI version that supports Windows 9, only secure boot is supported. You can't turn it off, but you can still enter a key manually when installing an Untrusted Non-Microsoft OS (UNMOS). The key is 256 characters long, and looks like a ROT13-encoded Perl script.

The version that supports Windows 10 also supports secure boot only, and still requires key entry. This time, though, UNMOSes are now called IOSes (Insecure Operating Systems.) They will run under a Microsoft-supplied hypervisor that includes mandatory hardware packet filtering.

And wait'll you see the third-party OS support strategy for PCs approved for Windows 11, code-named "Overton." The plan for Overton is that third-party OSes called PDOSes, or Potentially Defective Operating Systems, can still be run, but not on your local hardware. They will run only on cloud-hosted secure platforms over VNC.

All of this will happen because someone noticed that people will cheerfully bend over and accept restrictions in each generation that would not have been tolerated in the previous one. Evidence of this claim? Look at the history of Trusted Computing. Starting with the innocent-sounding idea of TPMs with unique CPU ID stamps, which were fought heroically by users until the next season of American Idol came on and everybody kinda forgot about it, the people behind the curtain have gotten everything they wanted over time. All they had to do was demand a little more "compromise" than they could get at any one stage of development.

In short, everything old is new again. We are all IBM customers now.

Re:Why not hardware manufacturers?

[cas2000]

Isn't it the Linux community that is always bitching about windows security? why aren't you cheering that they are doing something about it?

because this does nothing to improve windows security. the purpose is to be a barrier to entry (installation) for non-microsoft operating systems. it doesn't have to be 100% effective, it just has to make it more difficult for non-experts to try out linux (or freebsd or whatever) or to use special-purpose linux-based boot CDs like clonezilla or gparted.

Also, there's no guarantee at all that disabling will be "as simple as flipping a single setting in BIOS". on some machines, it might be. on others, it won't.

Re:Congratulations.

[Man On Pink Corner]

Congratulations, you are now a 'grown up'.

Sigh.

All we're saying is that it was considered a Pretty Good Thing when the mainframe era was brought down by the PC. Now, people like you are standing around cheering while the monster reassembles itself.

People older than you remember the way IBM dominated both the hardware and software sectors for many years. They held their customers hostage in every sense but the literal one. They used every technical and legal tool available to suppress third-party innovation. Eventually, people like Ross Perot, Jobs and Wozniak, and finally Bill Gates barged into the room and threw their proverbial hammers at the screen.

Fast forward to 2012. Steve Ballmer is pulling underhanded, abusive shit that would have earned him a fistbump from T. J. Watson. The rebels who once sponsored the '1984' commercial are now working feverishly to put the pieces of the telescreen back together... only this time, they're using Gorilla Glass.

Some of us are old enough to understand that this is not how things were supposed to go. If you're not so old or wise, that's fine... but by calling people who disagree with you "children," your post only shows your own lack of awareness and conscience.