Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft 'Patch' Blocks Linux Installs On Locked-Down Windows RT Computers (fossbytes.com)
An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes a report from fossBytes:
Microsoft has released a security update that has patched a backdoor in Windows RT operating system [that] allowed users to install non-Redmond approved operating systems like Linux and Android on Windows RT tablets.
This vulnerability in ARM-powered, locked-down Windows devices was left by Redmond programmers during the development process. Exploiting this flaw, one was able to boot operating systems of his/her choice, including Android or GNU/Linux.
The Register points out that since Windows RT is "a dead-end operating system" which Microsoft has announced they'll stop developing, "mainstream support for Surface RT tablets runs out in 2017 and Windows RT 8.1 in 2018. This is why a means to bypass its boot mechanisms is highly sought."
The Register points out that since Windows RT is "a dead-end operating system" which Microsoft has announced they'll stop developing, "mainstream support for Surface RT tablets runs out in 2017 and Windows RT 8.1 in 2018. This is why a means to bypass its boot mechanisms is highly sought."
... today I applied a patch to my credit card that blocks buying any locked down hardware from Microsoft. What a coincidence!
I think it's because people like to re-purpose things. Reasonable hardware found in the bargain bin as companies dump unsupported tablets might be enticing to some. The real question is why MS would close off the bootloader when the hardware is EOL in a year or so? That's just cunty.
It's this kind of infantile misunderstanding of security that will eventually be the undoing of technology. Purchasing of hardware is independent of security - if I own a device I have every right to do with it what I choose, even if that means installing DOS. The manufacturer is not obliged to PROVIDE that support, but every block they put in my WAY should be CRIMINAL. If you purchase a house, you have every right to remove whatever locks and security measures are placed there "for your security", and your physical devices should be no different.
Don't be so quick to give up your rights before you understand what it means, AC.
An exploit was being used for the install. They patched the exploit. If this is annoying to you, don't buy a system that you need to crack in order to install your chosen O/S.
Real lawyers write in C++
Because a security hole a benevolent Linux hacker can exploit to allow you to install an operating system of your choice could also serve as an attack vector for those with not-so-good intentions. How big of a security risk that poses to the user? I have no clue, but it's the reason I wouldn't trust any hacked version of a locked down device over a proper general purpose device.
It's just Microsoft being Microsoft, doing a typical dick move for no genuinely good reason.
"Oh dear, someone might be able to do something cool or useful with a product we're killing off? Fuck them."
Microsoft just can't help being dicks about stuff, no matter what it is.
Imagine the goodwill they could generate by just not being dicks at every goddamn opportunity, but nooooooo, we can't have that.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
The Surface was an attempt to imitate the business success of the iPad. The OS may be different, but the business model is a clone: Don't just sell the hardware, run the ecosystem as well. That way every sale becomes a continuing revenue stream. It's something that Microsoft wants desperately, because their revenue has always been tied to the upgrade process and customers are getting increasingly fed up of replacing their OS every three years - just look how long killing off XP took!
How big of a security risk that poses to the user?
Let's be clear about this. It's not a remote exploit. It's not something "a hacker" could normally use. It might be useful as part of a blended remote attack (go in through somewhere else, take over system, write new system to disk), but there are plenty of other more dangerous vulnerabilities left to patch. Why do they choose this one?
This is only really a "security vulnerability" because it allows the person who paid for the device (consumer) to become the owner of the device (person with control). Microsoft's security is compromised because their customers gain power and freedom.
That is bullshit which has long since been discredited. In the real world, the only thing a locked-down boot-loader like this accomplishes is to restrict what the user can do, it does not protect against malware as there are numerous other vectors.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Your entire starting point is wrong.
"Secure boot" isn't about security at all, it's an anti-competitive measure. Saying that this exploit is a security hole is like saying that any computer that doesn't run a locked down Windows installation or old enough to not have this "feature" is "insecure".