LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - News > Syndicated Linux News
User Name
Password
Syndicated Linux News This forum is for the discussion of Syndicated Linux News stories.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 10-12-2012, 08:00 AM   #1
LXer
LXer NewsBot
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Posts: 127,983

Rep: Reputation: 118Reputation: 118
LXer: Linux Foundation presents Secure Boot solution


Published at LXer:

The Linux Foundation and its Technical Advisory Board (TAB) have presented a plan to provide an easy way to start Linux systems where UEFI Secure Boot is active. The plan involves the very simple "loader" pre-bootloader that will be signed with a key from Microsoft. Typical Secure Boot PCs will come with the corresponding public verification key that allows them to start Windows 8 in Secure Boot mode – they should, therefore, also be able to start the mini-bootloader for Linux when Secure Boot is active, unless the Loader is included on the DBX blacklist that is maintained by the UEFI firmware.

Read More...
 
Old 10-12-2012, 08:46 AM   #2
H_TeXMeX_H
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301
Some solution ... giving in to M$. Disappointing.
 
Old 10-12-2012, 09:03 AM   #3
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Germany
Distribution: Whatever fits the task best
Posts: 17,148
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886
Why is making a free signed bootloader available and at the same time making sure that the necessary keys are deployed in the firmware giving in to Microsoft?
 
Old 10-12-2012, 09:15 AM   #4
H_TeXMeX_H
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
Why is making a free signed bootloader available and at the same time making sure that the necessary keys are deployed in the firmware giving in to Microsoft?
For two obvious reasons:

1) They will pay M$ for it.
2) They now depend on M$'s key.

Why didn't they just get their own key to be added and which they can use themselves to sign everything. It's just lame. They gave in to M$ instead of standing up for themselves. This sign of weakness will not go unnoticed.
 
Old 10-12-2012, 09:42 AM   #5
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Germany
Distribution: Whatever fits the task best
Posts: 17,148
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
For two obvious reasons:

1) They will pay M$ for it.
They will pay Verisign for it, not Microsoft.

Quote:
Why didn't they just get their own key to be added and which they can use themselves to sign everything.
Because they have to convince any hardware manufacturer to deploy those keys in their hardware, for Microsoft this is a piece of cake.
Remember that most mainboard manufacturers and OEMs don't support Linux, so why should they implement those keys? It is another thing if Microsoft asks them.
 
Old 10-12-2012, 09:50 AM   #6
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware64 15; Slackware64-current (VM); Debian 12 (VM)
Posts: 8,290
Blog Entries: 61

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Everything may be OK for x86 devices with Secure Boot, as far as Linux is concerned. But what about ARM? MS ignore ARM until such devices start proliferating, then suddenly port Windows 8 to that architecture. And plan to lock any other OS out. They probably hope that they can seduce manufacturers of ARM devices into pre-installing 8, resulting in less or no choice for Linux users. Say that's FUD if you want, but I would rather err on the side of paranoia than trust Microsoft.
 
Old 10-12-2012, 10:32 AM   #7
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Germany
Distribution: Whatever fits the task best
Posts: 17,148
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
Everything may be OK for x86 devices with Secure Boot, as far as Linux is concerned. But what about ARM? MS ignore ARM until such devices start proliferating, then suddenly port Windows 8 to that architecture. And plan to lock any other OS out. They probably hope that they can seduce manufacturers of ARM devices into pre-installing 8, resulting in less or no choice for Linux users. Say that's FUD if you want, but I would rather err on the side of paranoia than trust Microsoft.
I don't know why I have to say that again and again. Microsoft has currently no really mentionable marketshare on ARM. So they want to lock out other OSes on hardware that runs Windows 8. And? What is the point? Why are people not complaining about Apple doing the same, locking down the iPad? Or the many Android devices that have to be rooted to install anything other on it? Why this concentration on Microsoft only?

It is simple as that: You want to use Linux on an Arm device? Then don't buy a Windows device, the same why you wouldn't buy an iPad to run Linux (or Windows 8) on it.
 
Old 10-12-2012, 11:03 AM   #8
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware64 15; Slackware64-current (VM); Debian 12 (VM)
Posts: 8,290
Blog Entries: 61

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
Microsoft has currently no really mentionable marketshare on ARM.
The keyword there is "currently". What about the future? Like I said, they've only recently started showing an interest in ARM because such devices are proliferating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
So they want to lock out other OSes on hardware that runs Windows 8. And? What is the point?...You want to use Linux on an Arm device? Then don't buy a Windows device.
You may be satisfied with limited choices, but I'm sure a lot of people won't be. Why should ARM be any different to x86? I don't intend to buy any Apple device ('phone, tablet, laptop, desktop), so they're irrelevant, but I may want something ARM based. And I don't want that choice limited to the devices that MS isn't interested in. Crumbs from the rich man's table.

Last edited by brianL; 10-12-2012 at 11:04 AM.
 
Old 10-12-2012, 11:11 AM   #9
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Germany
Distribution: Whatever fits the task best
Posts: 17,148
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
Crumbs from the rich man's table.
In the first place we have to see if Microsoft is able to get more than the crumbs from Apple's and Google's table.
But even then, you don't want to have limited choice. OK, that is understandable. But why are you then insisting to be able to support the people that want to limit your choice in the first place? Wouldn't it make much more sense to only buy hardware that supports Linux, rather than basically making Microsoft a gift with buying their OS and then not using it? In many countries users don't have the choice to buy computers without Windows pre-installed and many people are complaining about this. This is not the case in the ARM landscape. You don't have to buy something with Microsoft software on it. But buying Microsoft devices to install Linux on them will make such a situation much more likely.
 
Old 10-12-2012, 11:28 AM   #10
H_TeXMeX_H
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301Reputation: 1301
It is definitely the easiest solution, but it is not the best one, and in the end it may make a big difference. I know that most mobile devices are locked down, be it from Apple, Google, or M$. I don't care about those, because I don't buy them. I care about x86.
 
Old 10-12-2012, 11:45 AM   #11
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware64 15; Slackware64-current (VM); Debian 12 (VM)
Posts: 8,290
Blog Entries: 61

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
But why are you then insisting to be able to support the people that want to limit your choice in the first place?
The people who want to limit my choice are Microsoft, and I'm certainly not supporting them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
Wouldn't it make much more sense to only buy hardware that supports Linux, rather than basically making Microsoft a gift with buying their OS and then not using it? In many countries users don't have the choice to buy computers without Windows pre-installed and many people are complaining about this. This is not the case in the ARM landscape. You don't have to buy something with Microsoft software on it. But buying Microsoft devices to install Linux on them will make such a situation much more likely.
The point I was making was that MS had managed to get most x86 hardware manufacturers to pre-install Windows, but people were/are free to install alternatives. IF MS get the same monopoly with ARM hardware, then the choice to use alternatives will not be the same. Those who want to run Linux on ARM will be left with a few 2nd rate devices that MS aren't interested in.
 
Old 10-12-2012, 12:24 PM   #12
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Germany
Distribution: Whatever fits the task best
Posts: 17,148
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886Reputation: 4886
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
The point I was making was that MS had managed to get most x86 hardware manufacturers to pre-install Windows, but people were/are free to install alternatives.
Microsoft managed that because they were the first and officially supported OS for IBM PC compatibles back in the time and they were able to use this position to suppress any possible competitor.
The situation nowadays with the ARM landscape is a completely different one: Microsoft are neither the first nor officially supported by a superordinate entity. They are not even a major player in that market. And their biggest problem: In the past they could use the massive amount of applications specifically written for Windows, together with their effort to be somewhat backwards compatible to older systems, to to fortify their stance as monopoly in the x86 market.But this massive amount of applications simply doesn't exist in the ARM market, in the contrary, there are far more iOS and Android apps.
So Microsoft is lacking its major forces and can only compete with really being innovating. Now guess what is not one of Microsoft' s strong sides.

Last edited by TobiSGD; 10-12-2012 at 12:25 PM.
 
Old 10-12-2012, 06:07 PM   #13
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware64 15; Slackware64-current (VM); Debian 12 (VM)
Posts: 8,290
Blog Entries: 61

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...7/#post4804313
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: UEFI Secure Boot Key provided by Linux Foundation LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 10-12-2012 12:21 AM
LXer: SUSE May Use Fedora's Secure Boot UEFI Solution LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 08-09-2012 06:40 PM
LXer: Red Hat Clarifies Doubts Over UEFI Secure Boot Solution LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 06-06-2012 06:42 PM
LXer: Secure boot: Linux Foundation, vendors offer solutions LXer Syndicated Linux News 1 11-01-2011 06:11 AM
LXer: Linux Foundation Releases Beta of Porting Solution LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 10-15-2008 11:12 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - News > Syndicated Linux News

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:09 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration