OpenBSD's De Raadt Slams Red Hat, Canonical Over 'Secure' Boot

An anonymous reader writes "OpenBSD founder Theo de Raadt has slammed Red Hat and Canonical for the way they have reacted to Microsoft's introduction of 'secure' boot along with Windows 8, describing both companies as wanting to be the new Microsoft."

Comments

A bit over the top

[jmorris42]

We have been hearing various people who should know better that "Redhat is the next MIcrosoft" and variations on that theme now for at least a decade. Guess Ubuntu should take it as a sign that they have 'made it' that the same is now being said of them.

Not saying I agree with either of their solution to the Kobayashi Maru (otherwise known as Secure Boot) problem, but calling them 'traitors' is a bit much. Especially since I can't rightly say I have a better plan and neither does Mr. deRaadt.

Re:A bit over the top

[Hatta]

Especially since I can't rightly say I have a better plan and neither does Mr. deRaadt.

The better plan is to sue Microsoft for abuse of their monopoly.

Re:A bit over the top

[UnknownSoldier]

> but calling them 'traitors' is a bit much.

Not really. They valued convenience over freedom. That is the antithesis of GPL / BSD. Once you start compromising your values for freedom it becomes easier to justify the convenience.

To paraphrase Ben Franklin: "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"

At some point this short-sightedness will come back to haunt them.

Re:A bit over the top

[jmorris42]

> The better plan is to sue Microsoft for abuse of their monopoly.

The old consent decree is long since expired. Good luck starting up a new round of lawsuits, Microsoft discovered lobbists after the last round so the DOJ isn't going to be bothering them again. So your plan is do nothing for years while a court case winds its way through the system and more then likely ends up going nowhere. Boy I'd love to take that plan to the stockholders meeting.

Re:A bit over the top

[drinkypoo]

The better plan is to sue Microsoft for abuse of their monopoly.

You mean, so that they can be found guilty again and let go without so much as a hand-slap again? Yes, that would be a wonderfully immense waste of taxpayer dollars.

Re:A bit over the top

[AdamWill]

"Requiring other OS makers to buy a license from Microsoft is very clear evidence of using their monopoly power to stifle competition"

It certainly would be. The only problem is that they're not doing that at all.

The industry as a whole agreed to ratify the basic Secure Boot mechanism as part of the UEFI standard. Secure Boot as described in the UEFI standard does not say anything at all about who should sign code and issue keys and any of that stuff. All it does is say 'here is a mechanism called Secure Boot by which the system firmware can maintain a list of keys and refuse to run code which is not signed by one of those keys'.

So once that's in the UEFI standard, we have a world where there is this thing called Secure Boot which operating system developers and hardware vendors can *choose* to implement. Or not. The UEFI standard says nothing about whether it ought to be used, what keys ought to be included, or anything like that.

So Microsoft, as an operating system vendor, decides they want to use this Secure Boot thing. They're going to sign their operating system, and require vendors who want to pre-load that operating system on their systems to ship Microsoft's key. So that their operating system will run. This is what the Microsoft Windows 8 certification requirements for x86 state: you have to turn Secure Boot on by default and include our key.

What the certification requirements explicitly do _not_ state is this: 'you can't include any other keys'. They definitely don't say that. They just say 'you have to include Microsoft's key'. There's no restriction at all on shipping any number of other keys. Additionally, the certification requirements explicitly require that the user be able to enrol their own keys, and also disable Secure Boot if they so desire.

So...Microsoft's requirements for OEMs are that they enable Secure Boot by default (but allow it to be disabled) and ship Microsoft's key (but they can also happily ship any number of other keys, if they choose).

It's logically impossible to construe this as "Requiring other OS makers to buy a license from Microsoft". It doesn't do that, at all. Other OS makers can have their OS signed by themselves or anyone else they like, and ask hardware manufacturers to ship that key. Microsoft does nothing to prevent this. Or they can choose not to sign their OS at all, and ask users to disable Secure Boot. Microsoft does nothing to prevent this. Or they can _choose_ to have Microsoft sign their OS so it'll work without them needing to get any other key loaded into firmware; Microsoft didn't _have_ to provide public signing services, but they are doing so to avoid a PR shitstorm. If Microsoft really wanted to be evil, why would it provide public signing services at all? Wouldn't it be more effective just to say 'no, we won't do that'?

I find it highly unlikely that you could build a convincing case of monopoly abuse over Secure Boot for x86, when the actual facts of the matter are taken into account. They just don't support the accusation strongly enough. If Microsoft could be shown to be exerting pressure to prevent alternative signing groups from existing or getting their keys loaded onto hardware, then maybe...but AFAIK no-one has shown such.

(disclaimers: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice or a legal opinion. Furthermore, though I work for Red Hat, I am not directly involved in any RH evaluation of this issue, I am not involved in RH legal in any way, and this is entirely a personal opinion and not in any way representative of Red Hat. It is not Red Hat's official position on the issue of the legality or otherwise of Microsoft's actions. I specifically leave open the possibility that Red Hat as an entity might take a completely opposite view of the case.)

Re:A bit over the top

[Baloroth]

Of course, the DOJ decision was after this little tidbit:

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Jackson's [original judge who issued the breakup order] rulings against Microsoft. This was partly because the Appellate court had adopted a "drastically altered scope of liability" under which the Remedies could be taken, and also partly due to the embargoed interviews Judge Jackson had given to the news media while he was still hearing the case, in violation of the Code of Conduct for US Judges.[17] Judge Jackson did not attend the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals hearing, in which the appeals court judges accused him of unethical conduct and determined he should have recused himself from the case.

(bracketed bit inserted by me)

Re:A bit over the top

[cpu6502]

Now here's an essay for you to read..... written by the Free Software Foundation:
(snip)

In theory, there should be no problem. In practice, the situation is more complicated. As currently proposed, Secure Boot impedes free software adoption. It is already bad enough that nearly all computers sold come with Microsoft Windows pre-installed. In order to convince users to try free software, we must convince them to remove the operating system that came on their computers (or to divide their hard drives and make room for a new system, perceptually risking their data in the process).

With Secure Boot, new free software users must take an additional step to install free software operating systems. Because these operating systems do not have keys stored in every computer's firmware by default like Microsoft does, users will have to disable Secure Boot before booting the new system's installer. Proprietary software companies may present this requirement under the guise of "disable security on your computer," which will mislead new users into thinking free software is insecure.

Without a doubt, this is an obstacle we don't need right now, and it is highly questionable that the security gains realized from Secure Boot outweigh the difficulties it will cause in practice for users trying to actually provide for their own security by escaping Microsoft Windows.

It's also a problem because the Windows 8 Logo program currently mandates Restricted Boot on all ARM systems, which includes popular computer types like tablets and phones. It says that users must not be able to disable the boot restrictions or use their own signing keys. In addition to being unacceptable in its own right, this requirement was a reversal from Microsoft's initial public position, which claimed that the Windows 8 program would not block other operating systems from being installed. With this deception, Microsoft has demonstrated that they can't be trusted. While we are interpreting their current guidelines, we must keep in mind that they could change their mind again in the future and expand the ARM restrictions to more kinds of systems.

The best way out of all of this (other than having all computers come pre-installed with free software) would be for free software operating systems to also be installable by default on any computer, without needing to disable Secure Boot. In the last few weeks, we've seen two major GNU/Linux distributions, Fedora and Ubuntu, sketch out two different paths in an attempt to achieve this goal.

Fedora's approach

There is much to like about Fedora's thinking, as explained by Matthew Garrett......... Unfortunately, while it is compliant with the license of GRUB 2 and any other GPLv3-covered software, we see two serious problems with the Microsoft program approach.

1) Users wishing to run in a Secure Boot environment will have to trust Microsoft in order to boot official Fedora. The Secure Boot signing format currently allows only one signature on a binary -- so Fedora's shim bootloader can be signed only by the Microsoft-vouched key. If a user removes Microsoft's key, official Fedora will no longer boot, as long as Secure Boot is on.

2) We reject the recommendation that others join the Microsoft developer program. In addition to the $99 expense being a barrier for many people around the world, the process for joining this program is objectionable. A nonexhaustive list of the problems includes: restrictive terms in multiple of the half-dozen contracts that must be signed, a forced commitment "to receive targeted advertisements and periodic member email messages from Microsoft," and a requirement to provide notarized proof of government-issued identification and a credit card.

Ubuntu's approach

Their approach has the same issue as Fedora's official method. Users have to trust Microsoft in order to boot official Ubuntu CDs. Their certification program amplifies this problem, because it means no one can sell certified Ubuntu machines without trusting Microsoft.

Re:A bit over the top

[vux984]

), but it doesn't change the fact Canonical and Redhat were forced to buy a license *from Microsoft* or else their OSes would not run.

That is not true.

Their OSes will run just fine provided any of the following are done:

a) the user logs into UEFI and disables secure boot

b) the user logs into UEFI and installs a distro key

c) the user logs into UEFI and installs their own key and signs the distro themselves.

d) the distro provider works with the manufacturer to have their key pre-loaded the same as microsofts.

Microsoft (currently) does prevent or even hinder any one of those alternatives on x86.

Canonical and Red Hat noted that a & b require at least a nomimal effort by the end user. (c requires a fair bit of effort for the end user) And that d required a substantial effort on their part.

So they chose "e) sign our distros with the MS key" that Microsoft already took the effort to have preloaded so that our users don't need to take the nominal step of disabling secure boot or of installing their own keys.

"That is called restraint-of-trade and it is VERY clearly a violation of the Sherman Antitrust "...

No its not.

"now they are actively blocking other OSes from Opera/Google/other OSes from running (unless they beg MS for a license)"

You don't need a license from microsoft. The end user can disable secure boot. The end user can install their own keys. The distro can approach the hardware manufacturer and have their own keys preloaded along side microsofts.

Microsoft isn't preventing anyone from doing anything, and you do not need to interact with microsoft at all to install other OSes.

Please COMPREHEND the above before replying or commenting on the subject further.

Re:A bit over the top

[AdamWill]

"That's a nice 3-page essay (double-space I presume), but it doesn't change the fact Canonical and Redhat were forced to buy a license *from Microsoft* or else their OSes would not run."

That's still not a fact. We were not forced to buy a license. We had several options, which Matthew outlined way back at the start of this whole saga, in this blog post:

http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html

Specifically, the paragraph headlined "Getting the machine booted". It mentions the other options, including "the possibility of producing a Fedora key and encouraging hardware vendors to incorporate it" and "producing some sort of overall Linux key". There is also the obvious negative possibility of simply not signing anything at all; this would require users to disable Secure Boot in the firmware before installing Linux, but it doesn't prevent them from doing so.

Both Fedora (note, Fedora, not RH; RH does not necessarily always follow what Fedora does) and Ubuntu had several choices and _chose_ to go with the Microsoft signing service as the 'least bad' option (well, Ubuntu will also be self-signing, for OEM preloads). The fact that we are _choosing_ to get our releases signed with the Microsoft/Verisign key does not imply that we were _forced_ to do so. We _choose_ to do so on the basis that it'll provide the maximum possible success rate of Fedora installs with the minimum amount of work. We could have chosen to self-sign, or not to sign at all, and ask users to disable Secure Boot or import our key. We decided not to do so.

"Problem si that peope like YOU seem to think corproatuions never od anything wrong"

This is an absurd stretch. You appear to be implying that anyone who suggests that a corporation might ever do anything at all that is _not_ wrong, must therefore believe that a corporation can _never_ do anything wrong. This is clearly ridiculous and false. You also mistake my opinion that Microsoft's actions are _not illegal_ for an opinion that they're _right_. These are not the same thing at all. I have carefully refrained from stating in public any personal opinion on the Rightness or Wrongness, from an ethical/moral standpoint, of Microsoft's actions. This is intentional. What I have said several times is that I don't believe the actions can successfully be characterized as _illegal_. Not everything that's wrong is also illegal. But if something is wrong/bad but not illegal, then you can't defeat that something through the courts. This sub-thread was prompted by someone saying that RH and Canonical should have chosen to prosecute or sue Microsoft. My point is that this is hardly a viable option if the suit would fail.

Re:A bit over the top

[jonwil]

Microsoft may have discovered lobbyists but their lobbyists didn't save them from EU rulings (Windows N with no media player, the "Browser Choice" screen etc). There is no reason to think the EU wouldn't be interested in investigating other abuses of monopoly power by Microsoft (including anything to do with secure boot)

Re:A bit over the top

[metacell]

It increases the cost of business for Canonical/RedHat to negotiate with all the OEM manufacturers and get them to include their key.

If you're Microsoft and already have deals with all OEM manufacturers, the cost may be negligible, but if you're Canonical/RedHat and your OS comes pre-installed on less than 1% of desktops, it may not be practically possible.

This is true for anyone who wants to enter the market for desktop operating systems and potentially compete with Microsoft. In economical terms, the SecureBoot system raises the barrier of entry for the desktop OS market.

Because of Microsoft's history of anti-competitive behaviour, I'm also worried about what they'll do next. Once they have control over the SecureBoot system, they could work to make it mandatory, citing piracy as reason. They could also pressure the OEM manufacturers, inofficially, to say "no" when a competitor asks them to include their OS keys. They could make it slow and costly for competitors to get new OS versions signed. Smaller Linux versions, without the backing of a corporation, won't be able to afford signing or getting OEM manufacturers to include their keys.

I don't know what'll happen, but having control over SecureBoot seems like too much power to place in the hands of any company.

Then there's the risk that the state will abuse the system once it's in place. SecureBoot controls what OS can be run, and the OS can control what software can be run, using a system of checksums and signing keys. In fact, the technology for that is already in place in Windows Vista onwards, but for the moment, you only get a warning when you try to run an unknown executable. If the state decides to outlaw certain software (such as encryption, hacking tools or P2P file sharing programs), SecureBoot combined with Windows enables them to enforce that law. If that ever happens, it'd be very good for Microsoft, since it severely reduces competition in the OS market, and gives even more power to the company who handles the signing of their competitors' OS:es.

Like RMS, Theo De Raadt is right when everyone

[RLiegh]

else is wrong.

Sadly, MS has the power to take control of our computers away from us --and with secureboot they're doing exactly that. This is a direct attack on personal computing and the freedoms of the end-user to control the software on their computer.

RMS and Theo De Raadt are both right on this --but neither one of them has the influence needed to avert this attack, so it doesn't matter.

The era of personal, general-purpose computing is over.

External intermediate nonce & public key &

[tlambert]

You ship the TPM with a per-TPM public key in it, and a USB dongle with a certificate on it signed with the per-TPM secret key for the per-TPM public key, and then you require the presence of the dongle to intermediate the installation of the OS of your choice onto the machine. You allow installation of other public keys signed with the private key, and you have another public key and separate private key to permit per-device self-signing of whatever code you want, but only on a per-device basis.

Then you have your BIOS/EFI/UEFI/Coreboot/u-boot refuse to do anything other than go into "install mode" if the dongle is inserted so that the dongle will be removed after installation for normal operation so that it can't be abused by malware.

After that, all vendors are responsible for securing their own OS past the point of it being loaded into memory.

1 thing I admire about him

[Anonymous Coward]

He has courage. You have to admire him for being so forthright, right or wrong. It takes balls to act as he does in today's "politically correct society" (what a bunch of hooey) - which in my opinion, is just being as honest as he can despite profanities and what-not.

I state that, because there's truly only 1 thing I personally respect in debates: When people are shown incorrect with facts versus their points. Undeniable reputably backed hard facts that are on the subject at hand, only.

Otherwise, things like ad hominem attacks are nothing but rubbish crap, period.

Thus, when Mr. DeRaadt's undeniably shown to be full of utter crap on statements he's made (we all make mistakes mind you) and moreso, consistently? Then his detractors have actually made a solid point.

When Mr. DeRaadt hasn't been utterly disproven beyond a doubt on his ideas, despite his "let it all hang out" attitude (which to a degree I respect a great deal for the reasons stated above but admittedly, other times not), he has made HIS point, disproving his detractors.

It's as simple as that.

In other words, what I have noted is that when the media or other groups attack a person on illogical grounds, ala ad hominem attacks? They fear them (and often for quite selfish and often nefarious reasons that aren't for the good of others, only themselves. Just an observation from over 1/2 a century of my life now.)

Theo ranting, film at 11

[Anonymous Coward]

Theo, ranting, is why he got kicked off the NetBSD project. Theo, ranting, is why OpenBSD's drivers for Broadcom chipsets stink. (Look up how the original author tried to resolve the licensing problems of sticking his GPL drivers in an OpenBSD kernel and was ignored, then screamed at by Theo for making the issue public.) Theo, ranting, is why OpenBSD doesn't properly handle booting from software RAID. Theo, ranting, is why the OpenBSD installer works like the UNIX crap I learned to loath back in 1985 and can't store the state of what you've already selected or go back, you just have to start over from scratch. Theo, ranting, is why OpenSSH has no built-in support for chroot cages. Theo, ranting, is why OpenBSD has no virtualization server capability. Theo, ranting, is why OpenSSH still stores both host keys and by default, user private keys in clear text with no expiration, and has no plans to fix this. Theo, ranting, is why the "compatiblity chart" is a list of chipsets that don't match the actual chipsets published by the manufacturer, and usually are from chipsets at least 4 years old.

Theo, ranting, usually means you're doing something right for your actual client base rather than for his ivory tower. There's a reason OpenBSD is used only by fanboys who run it on "hobby" systems and don't get any work done. And yes, I've dealt with the crap for years: I *wrote* the first SunOS ports of SSH-1, SSH-2, and OpenSSH. (Theo's fan club did not write SSH: they ported Tatu's previously GPL work into OpenSSH, and screwed up the license. Surprisingly little of the actual codebase is due to OpenBSD hosted development.)