Slashdot Mirror
UEFI Secure Boot Booted From Debian 9 'Stretch' (theregister.co.uk)
Debian's release team has decided to postpone its implementation of Secure Boot. From a report: In a release update from last week, release team member Jonathan Wiltshire wrote that "At a recent team meeting, we decided that support for Secure Boot in the forthcoming Debian 9 'stretch' would no longer be a blocker to release. The likely, although not certain outcome is that stretch will not have Secure Boot support." "We appreciate that this will be a disappointment to many users and developers," he continued, "However, we need to balance that with the limited time available for the volunteer teams working on this feature, and the risk of bugs being introduced through rushed development." The decision not to offer Secure Boot support at release leaves Debian behind Red Hat and Suse, making it the only one of Linux's three main branches not to support the heir-to-BIOS and the many security enhancements it offers.
UEFI is a successor to BIOS in the same way that systemd is a successor to init. They both "solved" many problems that didn't exist to anybody but their creators and financial supporters. Nobody wanted them, yet somehow they were forced down our throats. Neither came from the bottom-up in grassroots-fashion; both came from the top-down in military-fashion. And yet here we are today, and they've both won.
1. It is not "secure" at all
2. It is DRM, i.e. makes it less "your" hardware
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Nobody said they WERE a big problem, just that they COULD be a big problem. If you can't acknowledge that, clearly you don't know much about security. Which I guess is rather obvious since you ask that dumb question about the keys (hint: no single person has the key, and the people who DO have a portion of the key are quite a bit higher than 'admin', and the whole key never exists anywhere but tamper-resistant hardware).
The mission of "Secure Boot" is not to secure any computers, but to secure Microsoft's revenue stream.
Yes, you may be able to disable it on your desktop, but will this situation continue? Remember those Surface RT tablets?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
How? I notice a common thread of the anti-secure boot people is that they just make statements with nothing to back them up.
If there is a "Windows 10 compatible" sticker for example, you won't be able to run Debian on it.
If there is a "Windows 8 compatible" sticker, you may or may not be able to, depending on what that OEM decided to do, so will need a bit of research.
Source?
Microsoft required x86 and x86-64 PCs with the "Windows 8 compatible" sticker to ship with Secure Boot on but let the owner turn it off in the UEFI configuration form. Microsoft eased this requirement for x86 and x86-64 PCs with the "Windows 10 compatible" sticker: they must ship with Secure Boot on but configurability is up to the preference of the manufacturer. In either case, even if Secure Boot can be turned off, that doesn't mean that things like backlight brightness, audio, WLAN, Bluetooth, and suspend will work correctly.
Systemd alone has caused me more headaches than anything MS or SCO ever did. In fact it was software from that camp which made me evaluate OpenBSD.
There are a lot of good ideas in Systemd; overall, I don't disagree with a lot of the overall design goals.
The implementation, on the other hand, is lacking. My own experience is that systemd has finally reached an "early beta" level of stability. (My desktop system boots correctly about half the time with Systemd. The other half of the time Systemd doesn't start up D-Bus... I can't even shut the system down cleanly, because <drum roll> you need d-bus to shut down with Systemd! Yay!)
It's a shame systemd was pushed into production for most distributions years ago.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.