Slashdot Mirror
OEMs Allowed To Lock Secure Boot In Windows 10 Computers
jones_supa writes: Hardware that sports the "Designed for Windows 8" logo requires machines to support UEFI Secure Boot. When the feature is enabled, the core software components used to boot the machine are verified for correct cryptographic signatures, or the system refuses to boot. This is a desirable security feature, because it protects from malware sneaking into the boot process. However, it has an issue for alternative operating systems, because it's likely they won't have a signature that Secure Boot will authorize. No worries, because Microsoft also mandated that every system must have a UEFI configuration setting to turn the protection off, allowing booting other operating systems. This situation may now change. At its WinHEC hardware conference in Shenzhen, China, Microsoft said the setting to allow Secure Boot to be turned off will become optional when Windows 10 arrives. Hardware can be "Designed for Windows 10," and offer no way to opt out of the Secure Boot lock down. The choice to provide the setting (or not) will be up to the original equipment manufacturer.
That's a descriptive word I know gsm phone manufacturers work hard to distance themselves from, even more where it's more true.
I was nice of Microsoft to play along until the secure boot controversy was diffused and then stop backing openess. I'm not sure RMS would be completely surprised.
Seriously though, we have the choice, and the only thing that will maintain that freedom is that we express it with our dollars. Manufacturers are at OUR mercy, not the other way around.
If you can't get to the boot menu when you play with it in the store, don't buy it. Amazon will let you return nearly anything. This is a freedom we can defend.
Nah, couldn't be.
I don't buy prebuilts but any manufacturer that locks secureboot will no longer be recommended to any of my non-tech-savvy friends.
Unfortunately the vast majority of PC buyers are unaware and/or don't care and will buy that crap. They'll pay again when it comes time to have their computer serviced. I will only buy re-configurable and repairable hardware. I've built PCs before and I'll do it again. Not surprised to see that Microsoft's venture into openness was so fleeting.
However, RMS is smart enough that he would recognize that you have deliberately missed the point.
First they invented SecureBoot, but that was OK, because you could turn it off.
Then they prevented disabling it, but that was OK, because several non-Windows bootloaders are signed.
Next up will be refusing to sign the boot loaders which simply disable SecureBoot and load Linux/*BSD. That will be OK, because Ubuntu is properly signed including the kernel (I think).
After that it will only be certain commercial vendors who can get a certificate, but that will be OK, because Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 will run, only allowing signed kernel modules.
Yes I hate slippery slope arguments too.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
People predicted that this is exactly what would happen with Secure Boot. The initial support would be optional and after a time and the phasing out of older hardware the support would become mandatory. Microsoft moving to a mandatory secure boot would fall right in line with these predictions.
The next gambit in secure boot is to disallow the user putting in their own signing keys. From that point forward the only way to get an OS on a computer is with Microsoft's signature. Secure boot could be a good thing if the user was allowed total control, but microsoft shows their true goal here, which is to take total control of the PC market. Many forget that secure boot was devised at a time when Microsoft was first facing a new Linux OS challenger that they couldn't defeat with their traditional tactics. Many people don't consider this timing to be coincidental.
Of course it will work.
This is essentially another form of DRM and as you well know that was and is still highly successful and completely crushed all piracy. People still actively seek out products that say "DRM Included" just so they can have the safety and security of knowing that a large corporate is having its own best interests protected at the expense of your product's usability.
Anyone with a marketing background will tell you this is a FANTASTIC idea guaranteed to succeed...if you pay them enough...
But seriously now.
The general livestock will buy the "coolest" and/or "cheapest" option and wont understand what the fuck is going on as per usual. It success or failure will be based on whether this affects the price point of the product (i.e. making it cheaper) or detrimentally effect its "coolness". (like DRM did)
And DRM still exists and are some of the most profitable platforms around. e.g. Steam, Itunes, netflix, etc.
the server market cares about linux / VMware and dell can't risk having servers that only boot windows.
Sure, but those will be special server boxes sold at a 500% price premium. Because servers.
Average people will be priced out of that market.
As far as I'm concerned a locked up, drm-encumbered bootloader is dead on arrival.
If I were an Evil Executive at Microsoft, my next gambit would be to apply some unofficial, off-the-record pressure to the OEMs to make sure they have no means of disabling secure boot. Requiring this outright would be legally risky, could come back to bite them in future antitrust cases, but nothing to stop them from some deniable hints that it might help get a cheaper license deal.
True - the problem is not the security, the problem is who it's working for.
If this comes to pass, you'll have to beg Microsoft's permission to run any software at all on hardware locked down like this.
First, you had to switch off SecureBoot. This probably discouraged a bunch of users who may have tried Linux out. Who wants to turn off a feature that sounds all... secure.
Now, you'll have to obtain and install special signed binaries. That will be a stumbling block for a few more.
Then eventually, they'll stop signing binaries, and the only operating system that will be bootable will be Windows.
And finally, they'll change the OS not to load anything that isn't signed with an MS key. Only MS approved and certified developers (with valid Visual Studio Cloud accounts!) will be able to produce software for Windows, and sell it through the Windows App Store only.
I don't know about you, but I really don't have time to put together a laptop from components...
SecureBoot is a reasonable thing. It's when it's under the control of Microsoft, rather than the owner of the hardware, that it becomes a problem.
Make sure the OS is composed of files that are cryptographically signed and entirely legit? Fine.
Define "legit" as being "only those things signed with Microsoft keys"? Not so fine.
The current solution of a Linux bootloader signed by Microsoft is a stupid, half-baked compromise. I wouldn't have settled for it - nothing less than the ability to load my own signing keys into the BIOS being mandatory for all SecureBoot installations. And of course, disabling it.
For most people, its not about alternative operating systems.
Its about when they break the thing and bring it to me, and I cant fix it because I cant run any boot disks on it.
What will a locked secure boot loader (as opposed to one where UEFI can be switched off) do to the trade-in value for a used system?
Microsoft prohibited disabling UEFI Secure Boot on ARM devices back when Windows 8 support for them came out. And from what I have heard, this is one reason that old ARM hardware has a near zero value on the used equipment market. Meanwhile, x86 stuff still has a second life and some value.
Something to think about when selecting a Windows 10 system.
Have gnu, will travel.
There should be a permanent sh!tlist pinned to the top of Slashdot with any vendor that promotes this scheme for "PCs".
Microsoft's long-time disruptive technology shark in the water was that they promoted a platform that was just open enough to let techies (and 3rd party vendors) on a budget customize the systems however they need. This is the essence of a "personal computer", for the MS camp at least. Now MS has jumped their own shark.
Their tepid claims of being FOSS-friendly are being shown as ultimately false. Like Apple, they still won't incorporate open A/V formats into their products and their OSes will tell you an inserted Linux-formatted volume "must be formatted before use". Heaven forbid if I ever give an EXT3 formatted flash drive to an Android user, and they decide someday to look at it with Windows. They are similarly hostile when it comes to Linux multiboot setups. Its wilful negligence that still reigns in Redmond and must be fought with tooth and nail to gain any concession.
And how necessary for security are these firmware-level lockouts?? They are not! Qubes OS employs a scheme that, in combination with a TPM, prevents a computer from being able to reproduce a chosen passphrase if its been tampered-with. No doubt, the MS excuse will be that the consumer or administrator can't be bothered to remember a sentence to verify system integrity.
I suggest rallying around vendors like this: https://www.crowdsupply.com/pu...
Eventually, we should pressure the market to open up the whole damn stack; We will probably be forced to.
This is still the wrong approach. The owner of the hardware should have the right to turn it off if they so choose. It should not be up to Microsoft. And it should not be up to the OEM. And it should not be up to carriers. And it should not be up to the government, either (might as well keep extending out the doom-and-gloom possibilities).
OEM's should listen to their customers and not Microsoft. Locking the bootloader is extremely anti-consumer and anti-competitive. The time to find out your machine is a paperweight should not be after you spent your hard-earned money buying a machine. When this whole fiasco started, there was ZERO transparency from the OEM's. You could not call Dell and ask if machine X had a locked secureboot, because the idiot support and sales people don't know. And it is not listed on the websites, the manuals, or the boxes.
>"So Red Hat and Ubuntu establish relations with consumer hardware vendors and offer factory signed binaries. Linux is not doomed. Linux kernel developers need to be careful about their motherboards but the vast majority of Linux uses would be just fine."
And what about Mageia?
And what about FreeBSD?
And what about FreeDOS?
And what about VMWare VSX?
And what about that hard drive diagnostic disc?
And what about that RAID controller utility?
And what about any number of many dozens of OSes, utilities, and distros?
The "solution" is not to try and get everyone to play by the stupid secureboot "rules" that MS is trying to force on everyone. The solution is to have ALL machines give the owner of the machine the CHOICE to decide if they want secureboot on or off.
Microsoft saying it is "optional" means it absolutely won't be optional when they start putting behind-the-scenes (and probably illegal) pressure on the OEM's to start the lockdown.
How many standard users are going to turn that off?
How many "standard" users are going to install Linux, or even know what Linux is?
Once a user learns enough about Linux to want to install it they will undoubtedly know how to turn this feature off or install the correct keys.
The problem is when big monied interests are successful at ridding the market of hardware that fits your needs in exchange for that which fits theirs. You know as well as I do that the general public won't consider this even a minor issue, never mind a deal-breaker when it comes to new hardware purchases.
By the time the public sees any problem with the amount of control that's been pulled away from them, it'll be far too late to do anything except start from scratch.
Freedom is, in all aspects, "pining for the fjords." With regards to the manufactures of gadgets, it isn't in their interest to allow even the slightest bit of freedom. You can't install your own OS on the device you paid for, you can't install software that wasn't blessed by the prevailing curator of the local app store. We're moving towards a society in which you (as a consumer) don't own anything, it's leased or rented or provided "gratis", so long as you remain in accordance with whatever contractual terms they wish to impose. And before the Desktop centric crowd chimes in with "I own my box!", sure, you do now. But the current business practice is to retain ownership of everything and dole out access with as many restrictions as possible. It isn't that big of a leap to presume that sometime in the future you'll only be renting your motherboard, and may even have to pay extra to enable more memory access or "Premium CPU interconnects". Hell, you might be already! Have you read through the entirety of the terms of use provided with every component present in your machine? Do you really think Intel has your best interest at heart? These corporate scumbags can stuff end user agreements with whatever they want, knowing full well that practically no one is either going to read it, or have the financial means to fight it out in court.
Once the BIOS is locked down, why wouldn't manufacturers require extra payments for increased CPU throughput or maximum available RAM? Sure, your new mobo comes with slots for 64 GB, but it's only licensed for 16GB, any more requires an extra payment. These components are getting so sophisticated that bits and pieces of what used to be considered standard functionality, parts which were once hardwired, will be doled out as premium add-ons and DLC-like upgrades. There's nothing stopping them, it's only a matter of time before each and every aspect of the computing environment is held ransom by one company or another.
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
Pressure? No. "Discount", yes.
And considering the amount of shitware that was on my last desktop I didn't build myself (Acer, circa 2007), manufacturers apparently don't care about consumer opinion since that thing ran slower than 486 molasses brand new out of the box.
In a few years, the irony may be that Apple is the most open of major PC makers.