Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu Can't Trust FSF's Secure Boot Solution
sfcrazy writes "The Free Software Foundation recently published a whitepaper criticizing Ubuntu's move to drop Grub 2 in order to support Microsoft's UEFI Secure Boot. The FSF also recommended that Ubuntu should reconsider their decision. Ubuntu's charismatic chief, Mark Shuttleworth, has responded to the situation during an interview, and explained the reason they won't change their stand on dropping Grub 2 from Ubuntu. Shuttleworth said, 'The SFLC advice to us was that the FSF could require key disclosure if some OEM screwed up. As nice as it is that someone at the FSF says they would not, we have to plan for a world where leaders change and institutional priorities change. The FSF wrote a licence that would give them the rights to take specific actions, and it's hard for them to argue they never would!'"
The SFLC advice to us was that the FSF could require key disclosure if some OEM screwed up.
So in other words they're anticipating not only that OEMs are going to accidentally or intentionally ship machines running Ubuntu that are locked down so that you cannot boot your own kernels on them but also that they won't be able to convince the OEMs to fix their broken BIOSes to allow users to run their own code. By not using GRUB2 they ensure that said OEMs would have no legal obligations to allow you to run the code you wanted on the PC you'd just bought.
Until Windows 9 requires that Secure Boot can't be turned off and you can't install new keys if you want to ship with a 'Windows compatible' sticker.
FSF may be fruitcakes at times, but on this they're correct. 'Secure Boot' should have been named 'Windows lockin'.
Grub2 is an epic piece of shit anyway.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I know this is offtopic, but just a quick request to the powers that be. I tried installing Ubuntu a while back, and 'Grub' not only made Ubuntu boot by defaut, but also wouldn't allow any easy way for to change that to Windows. In addition to that, uninstalling Grub proved to be very cumbersome.
I'm sure many would be far less patient than me, so it may help perceptions of Linux/Ubuntu if some of the basics were in place.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Because:
1. Once the technology is deployed, it requires only altering one line of a contract to kill linux on the desktop.
2. Because being able to ensure the OS hasn't been tampered with by the hardware owner is vital for any attempt to make effective DRM schemes.
While FSF just tries to fight their ideological war, Ubuntu takes less hard road and understands why Microsoft needs to employ secure boot. Good for them, and better for Linux.
How is this good for users? Restricted boot environments are about DRM, not about securing the system from malware. Canonical does not care about whether or not people can use the computers they own in the manner they wish to use them, so how is that a good thing?
I do not want to choose between Fedora and Ubuntu; I want to use whatever distro I fancy, and I want to be able to switch distros without jumping through hoops (yes, there are hoops to jump through now; this move by Canonical does nothing to advance any solution to that problem).
Palm trees and 8
Serious Sandwich, aka Bonch, Sharklaser, Tech* etc is one of a number of sockpuppet accounts established and maintained by Burson Marsteller on behalf of Microsoft.
Their presence in this discussion means comments and moderation will be slanted to emphasize their client's viewpoint.
Treat all commenters in this discussion with suspicion and derision. Do not post or reply to posts yourself.
It seems to me that Canonical is missing the bigger piece -- which is that the vibrancy of Ubuntu depends on the wider vibrancy of Linux. If Ubuntu jumps into Microsoft's lifeboat and leaves the rest of the GNU/Linux community to sink or swim, Canonical is ultimately slitting their own throat slowly.
Trusting Microsoft over the FSF seems foolhardy at best.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
It's also optional
Unless you're on ARM, in which case it won't be, so no, it's not always optional.
I don't understand why Microsoft requires secure boot. Care to explain?
Here is but one example: the market for video games is billions of dollars, and while a lot of that money is in consoles and phones, there is still plenty in PC games. The problem is that on my PC, I can modify the game in arbitrary ways -- I can remove a license check, I can cheat (BIG problem in MMOs), etc. The reason I can do this is that the OS has no good way to stop me -- even if Windows tried to prevent me from running unsigned code, I can run a program before Windows even boots up to get around that restriction.
Thus restricted boot environments become a necessity for Microsoft to turn Windows into a DRM-friendly platform. DRM on PCs is not dead, it was just on vacation while the big players worked on a way to sneak in restricted boot environments. No more grabbing secret keys out of running processes, no more replacing WoW DLLs to cheat, no more patching software to evade license checks. That's why Microsoft requires this.
That is also why we need to fight back against this.
Palm trees and 8
I'm sure the SFLC did tell him that a mistake by an OEM could force disclosure of the signing key. But notice he doesn't say explicitly that they told him it could force disclosure of Canonical's signing key. That's because I'm pretty sure they didn't tell him that. Think about it. The logic here is that an action that breaches the GPLv3 by a downstream distributor (the OEM) could force the upstream to correct the breach. Now, suppose I put that in the context of code: I distribute a GPLv3'd piece of software, you receive it from me, modify it and distribute the modified version. If Shuttleworth's argument is correct, then I am in breach of the GPLv3 because I'm not distributing the source code to your modifications as required by the GPLv3. But that's obvious nonsense, since I'm only required to distribute the source code to the software I'm distributing and I'm not distributing your modifications at all. Only you're doing that, and the only way you can pass your obligations back to me is if you're me in the legal sense (ie. a wholly-owned subsidiary company or a division of my company) or if I've signed a contract with you to take on those obligations for you.
So I suspect that while Canonical would be required to distribute any tools needed to create signed bootloaders and the keys needed for the BIOS to boot them, unless they're distributing the actual hardware it'd be on the OEM (who selected the hardware) to take any steps necessary to comply with the GPLv3 as regards the hardware (ie. either choose a BIOS that allowed keys to be enrolled or Secure Boot to be disabled, or distribute their own signing keys). Of course that could place the OEMs in a bind: if they used Canonical's signed binaries and keys then the OEM would be obliged to provide the signing key, but Canonical is not obliged to provide it to them. Which I think is exactly the situation the FSF desires: OEMs placed in a position where to use a very desirable bit of software in their equipment requires selecting a BIOS that permits user control over the Secure Boot process and keys.
I mean reasons that benefit the user
That never enters the picture; users, in this model, are nothing more than an exploitable resource, a source of revenue for the corporate overlords.
Palm trees and 8
> Secure Boot is very much required security feature. It will lock out malware that hides rootkits in boot sector. That's a very good thing.
Somebody with more crypto knowhow, please put me some knowledge on here. Because I'm not seeing it that way. Secure boot will work wonders to ensure Hollywierd and Microsoft that their hardware isn't doing something nasty like letting the guy who put money on the counter and thinks they own it (how funny!) run something of their choosing. What I don't see is how it really protects the user from malware.
The security only runs one way. Once somebody can subvert the boot process in any way (and show me ONE device that hasn't been rooted) all malware need do is what it has always been doing. Take over the boot. Then IT checks the sig on Windows and tells it that "I'm the bootloader, you can trust me." and there isn't a 100% sure way to verify backwards. We all know most vendors will still be flashing the BIOS/UEFI from Windows because anything else will be too much hassle for the end users. They will pretty much have to do it to get key revocation lists. Oh yea they talk now about secure pathways through secured supervisor modes but we know that if it is running Windows nothing on that CPU is really and truly secure. And wait until the motherboard makers start encheapening the system. Remember when a physical write protect jumper was standard to protect flash BIOS? And a ROM portion with an emergency rescue reflash util? When was the last time you saw any of those protective measures on sonsumer equipment?
> It's also optional, so you can always install Linux.
On x86, for now.
Democrat delenda est
The expect that an OEM may screw up. In that case, their current solution will still allow users to run their own code except for the bootloader itself.
In other words, what we had with OtherOS on the PS3.
But if they used a GPLv3 bootloader, they have received advice that they might have to reveal the key when the OEM screws up, because that would be necessary for someone to provide their own bootloader.
How is that a bad thing? This is not a key that is used to protect military secrets, it's a key that serves exactly one purpose: to prevent people from running modified software.
Far better to not chance it and just avoid the GPLv3 for something that actually has a free license, rather than the significant impositions that GPLv3 attempts to impose in the name of the FSF's particular vision of "freedom".
Your freedom to throw punches ends where my face begins. My freedom to install software on my computer is not less important than some OEM's freedom to restrict what software runs on their products.
Palm trees and 8
Everyone knows the Free Software Foundation cannot be trusted, but Microsoft can.
I just got back from vacation...did the universe invert while I was away?
Far better to not chance it and just avoid the GPLv3 for something that actually has a free license, rather than the significant impositions that GPLv3 attempts to impose in the name of the FSF's particular vision of "freedom".
The "freedom" to actually be able to run the software you want on the computer you bought? You're right, they suck.
If the only thing keeping this secure
Secure from what? The goal is not to secure you from a bootloader virus; I doubt that was discussed for more than five minutes while this system was being designed. The goal is to secure DRM systems from you, the user, because of what happened with DVDs and deCSS, what happens with software cracking tools, etc. The goal is to turn PCs into iPads.
This is a trap, designed to rob you of the freedom you have right now, which as it so happens is the freedom that PCs were meant to provide in the first place.
Palm trees and 8
The SFLC advice to us was that the FSF could require key disclosure if some OEM screwed up.
Yes! Yes, they could - Because it would mean that the OEM had "accidentally" taken away the user's right to do whatever the fuck they want with hardware bought and paid for by that user. And I have no problem with requiring key disclosure in that situation.
Look, Shuttles, we get the idea that you want every bit as much control over Ubuntu as Microsoft has over Windows, and UEFI has the potential to finally fulfill your little wet dream there. You seem to have overestimated your importance in the Linux world, however - If you won't honor the spirit of "free" software, we'll simply use a distro that does.
I chose it because I could see the sources, update as I see fit, build as I see fit and be able to do a build without clobbering all my installed software.
So why would I suddenly want to chose a closed source Microsoft solution? This is the company, whose practices since 1995 are the major reason why we have malware, viruses and worms.
Such great vision from the start, nobody would even think to remotely try to control your computer, right?
As a mainframe admin I was charged with keeping sneaky bastages out all the time, why didn't Microsoft believe this sort of thing could happen on a PC? To this day they still have gaping holes in security and their transparency is a thing of fantasy.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
As nice as it is that someone at the FSF says they would not, we have to plan for a world where leaders change and institutional priorities change
As nice as it is that someone at Microsoft says they will sell $99 keys, we have to plan for a world where leaders change and institutional priorities change
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
How is revealing the key bad?
Well, how about that it would be revoked! Having the key would allow one to subvert Secure Boot on windows systems, so you can bet dollars-to-doughnuts that if Canonical had to release its key, Microsoft would revoke Canonical's key.
Test your net with Netalyzr
Intel had the bright idea back in the nineties and it was soundly rejected; Intel got a lot of bad publicity and backed off. Then MS came up with "Palladium" ten years ago and it, too, was soundly rejected and MS got yet another black eye.
WTF, people?? FIGHT THIS MADNESS!! This is yet another round of MS's war against all other OSes. This is MS wanting to control YOUR computer. This has no upsides whatever, and is all bad.
Gees, ten years isn't that long, have you folks forgotten already?
Free Martian Whores!
Otherwise, they are just legitimizing an attack on user freedoms, despite being the maintainers of the most popular GNU/Linux distribution out there (and despite the fact that those very freedoms are what enabled their entire operation).
Palm trees and 8
Which is a greater attack on user freedom?
a) Not being able to change the bootloader?
b) Not being able to install on new systems without changing EFI settings because the signing key got revoked?
Canonical chose "A". Fedora chose A, too, btw, because they didn't sign grub, but built a "pre-bootloader-bootloader" to load Grub.
Test your net with Netalyzr
Most of the people in the scene will tell you that the PS3 wasnt cracked for 4 years because the truly skilled people that crack this stuff were being hands off about it. Once Sony went into full on evil mode, all bets were off.
Good-bye
If I don't have the keys to my computer, it's not mine.
RMS's The Right to Read looks less and less paranoid all the time.
Ask yourself, what percentage of a system's time and lifecycle are spent in boot? What percentage of the binary runtime image is loaded in this process?
"Secure boot" is FAKE SECURITY whose ACTUAL risk is GREATER than its SUPPOSED benefit. Lock boot images, and the real security problems for persisting on a host and hiding activity will only move to the next rung on this ladder.
The only thing "Secured" is vendor lock-in.
Sure, you can detect a compromised kernel at boottime. That is a FRACTIONAL coutermeasure, to actual risk. EVERY driver and ring-0 loadable module needs also to be signed. It's bullsht, in the real computing world - unless you have an XBox or iPad model.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Except that Canonical is in a position to demand that EFI boot restrictions be disabled by default. That does not seem to have entered the picture, because they do not care about user freedom. I disagree equally with Fedora's approach, because I personally switched away from Fedora when I disagreed with some changes they made, and this boot restriction system will make that harder to do.
Now is the time to fight back, not compromise. Bootloader restrictions are a direct attack on free software and user freedom, and the response by Canonical and the Fedora project has been to just lie down and accept that attack.
Palm trees and 8
The FSF's version of freedom is equivalent to nanny-state socialism. They've basically decided that their idea of playing nice needs to be enforced by big stick, and will happily trample over anything and everything that does something they dislike.
In this particular case, Ubuntu wants to place a bootloader that will allow you to load ANY operating system, bypassing the "security" features they dislike in the new UEFI. Ubuntu wishes to ensure that users can boot any operating system they like and run any software they want. Their concern is that the GPLv3 makes provisions by which the FSF could, in this case as the owner of GRUB2, deem that a machine that won't let them replace GRUB2 with something else is in violation of the GPLv3. At that point, they can demand that Ubuntu surrender its encryption keys used to provide secure bootloader verification--which then allows anyone to sign any bootloader they want, thus negating any security features you could leverage out of the bootloader (for example, intentionally instructing it to boot only signed code--keeping the chain trusted, rather than booting a foreign OS as is the option).
The point of contention is where the FSF gets to demand Ubuntu hand over their encryption keys for this particular application because they've decided it's 'unfair' that users don't have the option to replace a bootloader. The GPLv3 is a restrictive license agreement whose provisions do in fact allow the copyright holder to make certain demands about HOW their software is used. Most people fixate on the "Free" part because you're free to distribute and modify the software; but you are also "Obligated" to publish your modifications in source form if published in any form.
The GPLv3 brings restrictions on how you can use the software, such that you must be able to modify it--the hardware you use the software on must be configured to allow the use of modified software (or any other software). 'Jailbreaking' is not a thing with GPLv3 because the vendors would have to supply a way to run custom software. If the Linux Kernel was GPLv3, then you wouldn't have to root any phones to install Cyanogenmod: vendors would be required to provide an official method for the end user to replace the software with custom versions.
The Affero versions of the GPL family of licenses go even further: if you USE a modified version of the software, you must publish its source. That means if you modify an AGPL Web server and use it to serve your Web site, you have to put up the Web server's source code. An AGPL Web application would work the same way: modify an AGPL CMS and you need to publish its source code on your Web site.
These licensing restrictions are important to understand when licensing Free software. Canonical has decided not to license GRUB2 in Ubuntu on UEFI platforms because of potential conflicts between their requirements and the requirements of fulfilling the licensing agreement in certain cases. The FSF is extremely well known for its hard-line enforcement stance and thus there is the concern that they would not negotiate to reconcile technical mistakes, but rather take advantage of them to file a hostile injunction and demand release of encryption keys. The FSF behaves in this way because they have high ideals about what's "good for everybody"--as I said, they are effectively nanny-state socialists and want to get their fingers in everything so they can make people "play nice."
In short, this is why we have many licenses. The FSF uses the GPLv3 because they have their ideals and can support them with the GPLv3 (which, by the way, was born mainly out of the FSF's distaste for locked-down TiVo platforms). Other people still use the GPLv2 because they understand what the GPLv3 entails and their ideals are dissimilar from the FSF--Linux is GPLv2 because the relevant bodies are not sharply against locked-down phones running android, something they could legally prevent with GPLv3. Similarly many people use the BSD and MIT licenses because their philosophy is, "Here is code! Somebody might find this useful!"
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Some dogs like their leashes. :(
Some users prefer walled gardens. They don't know what they've lost.
It's rather stunning how close we are getting to some of the dystopias predicted by the FSF. They seemed silly at the time.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
(please note that I am NOT the same AC that made the accusation, but rather, one that wondered who this firm is, so I figured I would share my findings...)
Ok, so I do a bit of digging for two minutes, and came up with this:
Who:
Burson-Marsteller is a PR firm. As in, a really, really, REALLY big fuckin' firm. Apparently the only place on Earth worth mentioning that doesn't have an office of theirs is Antarctica.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burson-Marsteller
Where:
Burson-Marsteller has been very, very busy. I haven't had time to second-source the entries from Wikipedia, but supposedly this firm has been at the forefront of a lot of really, really bad shit. The original Tylenol Poisoning scare, Three Mile Island, PR for Phillip Morris; you name the PR nightmare, and there's a good chance they've been there to mop up. In other words, these guys are "World-Class Spin Doctors".
When:
"When" really doesn't even apply in the context I'm using because they are still in business as part of the WPP plc, the world's largest advertising agency. Which means, "when" is really all the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WPP_Group
What:
It took a bit of digging but I found a set of links that tied them back to Microsoft. Ok, so now we have something tying the two together with Microsoft as Burson-Marsteller's client.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/03/microsoft-v-google
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110513/15424314269/burson-marsteller-digs-itself-deeper-hole-deletes-critical-comments-its-facebook-page.shtml
The accusation:
I myself have observed "shill-like" behavior over the last decade on Slashdot, and in the last 4 years it has intensified quite a bit. I believe that, while there is no direct way to prove the accusation, there is sufficient background for readers to make an informed decision as to the possibility of the accusation being accurate.
Why AC:
Yes, I have an account here, let's just say numbered under 200,000 and leave it at that. No, I will not post this with my account for reasons that should be readily apparent to anyone with two brain cells attached - which is to say, attracting the attention of a world-sized firm to my little pittance is probably not the wisest move to make. If they have enough money to pay people to sit around all day and troll slashdot forums, then they certainly have enough money to harass me (given the opportunity).
Sometimes the best tactic to keep out of harm, is to simply not be seen.
That’s why I prefer contributing to GPL projects over non-copyleft: I know that helps the fight for a world in which all computer users have the 4 freedoms.
Canonical decided that they no longer care about that which made their founder rich.
GPLv3 just closes some loopholes, so I prefer v3 over v2: more measures to ensure my freedom in the cases where I am a mere user (98% of all the software I interact with).
You don't understand GPL.
GPL is there to allow the final user to do whatever he want with his hardware.
A developer is not the final users, if he wants to use GPL code, he must give the same rights he received to everyone.
GPL2 had some holes that allowed some developers/builders to take the work of others and not giving back what they should.
GPL3 was made to fix that holes... yep, some people that were abusing the GPLv2 holes didnt like it, but bad luck, its not their code.
If you don't like that license, don't use programs with it and start over with your preferred license. you are not important, the final users are!
So here is the global view:
GPL is to give ALL power to the final users
Closed source gives all the power to the product owners/builders... the user loses freedom
BSD/MIT gives all the power to the developer and hope that product owners/builders are nice to not take the user freedom...
<sarcasm>everyone knows that companies are always nice to the users!!</sarcasm>
Higuita
Sure, it would need to be finalized in a legal document, but the first draft can look something like this:
Canonical: Howdy, Partner. When we work together to bring a computer to market running Ubuntu and GPLv3'd GRUB, can you make sure that the end-user is able to install their own signing keys so they can install modified versions of GRUB, per the licensing terms?
Partner: Okay, how would we do that? I mean, how can we make sure that we meet the terms of the license?
C: It's not that difficult. Basically y'all just need to make sure that the end-user can change the set of signing keys listed in the firmware. The Free Software Foundation wrote a whitepaper about it. You can also contact them via email if you have any questions!
P: Wow. That's really difficult to understand, too bad we don't have any engineers on staff who can figure....awww... I'm just kidding with you, of course we have skilled engineers and lawyers on staff. We even have people who know how to write emails. We should be all set!
C: Awesome, Partner. Before you actually ship hardware with an Ubuntu-Certified sticker on it, why don't you send one of the pieces of hardware to us so that we can manually test to make sure that end users can install their own signing keys. We'll use my son jimmy, 'cause we want to make sure it's so easy a kid can do it.
P: Okay, sounds great on my end. Glad that we had this conversation. I was worried it would take all day, but it really just took 15 minutes of my time.
C: Yep. Now remember: If you do ship some hardware with GRUB installed and you make a mistake so that users can't install their own signing keys, you're going to have to make a firmware update or otherwise make this problem right. Understand?
P: Isn't that what we have to do when we break the license of any of the pieces of software that we ship on our devices?
C: Yes. But I just wanted to make sure that we stated it explictly so that you wouldn't try to push the mistake off on us.
P: Fair enough.
C: Great to talk. We'll put all of this down in the formal contract when our lawyers draw it up. Have your engineers call our engineers about any kernel bugs. We should be able to get this hardware out by Q1 of 2013. So long!
P: Bye!
---------------
I mean, seriously, what's The Big Deal here? Just make some contracts with your hardware partners and hold them to the terms of the contracts like every other business deal that has ever happened. Why does Canonical think this is so difficult?
coding is life
My freedom to install software on my computer is not less important than some OEM's freedom to restrict what software runs on their products.
THEIR products? You paid for them, they're yours. I'd say you have every right to do anything you damned well please on your own equipment, and the vendor has no rights whatever after he has your cash. His rights are completely unimportant, yours are supremely important.
This is like Ford saying you're only allowed to use Firestone tires, Goodrich aren't allowed.
It's madness to go along with this evil bullshit.
Free Martian Whores!
Actually, I'm pretty sure that personal computers were simply "meant" to be useful to the most people possible
No, PCs were built by people who wanted to own and control their computers, and whose opinion was that everyone else should have that freedom. In the 1960s (years before PCs), IBM, AT&T and other companies were already talking about how to bring computers into offices and homes, by selling computation as a utility. The plan was for you to have a terminal in your house, which would connect to a mainframe, and you would pay by the CPU hour, by the storage you used, etc. The computer itself would be equipment owned and operated by the utility.
The point of PCs was to give you a computer that you owned and operated, rather than one you rented. You could install whatever hardware you wanted, you could run whatever software without worrying about the bill, you could modify the system in arbitrary ways. It was never a choice between PCs and having no computer access, it was a choice between PCs and renting time on some mainframe.
Perhaps sad for those of us who tinker, but whether or not the bootloader is locked will have zero impact on the vast majority of personal computer users...
I disagree; stronger DRM means tighter controls on what people can do. Copy a movie to your tablet, so you can watch it on the go? That will be something people will be forced to pay for, or even forbidden from doing in the first place. This is not just about hackers. Ordinary people often have no idea what their computer is truly capable of because they are using software, and now hardware, that is designed to restrict them.
It's also sensationalist to assume that those of us who do tinker will not still have plenty of hardware options
Yeah, but we may be forced to make decisions that we would not have had to make otherwise. What if dual booting becomes impossible, because Windows will not run on a system without these restrictions? That will stop a lot of people -- people who cannot afford two computers (like me when I was in middle school) and who cannot give up Windows.
Either turn off "secure boot" (buy x86)
Not necessarily easy to do; OEMs do not have to cooperate and enable custom mode, let alone allow you to disable the feature entirely.
you may also just build your PC yourself
There is no guarantee that Windows will actually run on such a system. Look at the effort required to get Mac OS X running on a homebrew system; what reason does Microsoft have to make Windows available on a home-built system? Maybe only OEMs will get to do that, or maybe only OEMs will be allowed to install Windows with support for certain entertainment services (e.g. Netflix), etc.
I know that it is a little paranoid, but Microsoft does not have a history of being soft on these things. Remember when they integrated Internet Explorer into the desktop? If Microsoft is pushing this because they envision the future of home computer as being entertainment-oriented -- and I strongly suspect that this is the case -- it is reasonable to assume that they will do everything they can to create a "media ecosystem." Why shouldn't OEMs be cutting deals with media companies? Why wouldn't Microsoft want to position Windows as the software that is used for that purpose? This is something that will probably make a lot of money, for Microsoft and the OEMs that ship Windows systems, and the entertainment companies. Perhaps homebrew systems will also get access -- for a price, and probably a higher price than what OEMs pay.
Of course servers won't have locked bootloaders, either.
I used to think this, but I am not so sure about that anymore. Why not have locked bootloaders on servers? There is a larger security concern there (the stakes are much higher; even if bootloader rootkits are a ra
Palm trees and 8