Windows 8 Secure Boot: Designed to Lock Out Linux?

[DrPepper]

...and the two types of users mentioned above won't have a problem running Linux on a Win8 machine, even if there is no off button


Edit: wait a sec, does that mean Win 8 will only run on a UEFI equipped system ?

It will run on older hardware but the issue is that hardware won't be carrying a Windows 8 certified sticker I believe which is hardly an issue.

 

[qubit]

It will run on older hardware but the issue is that hardware won't be carrying a Windows 8 certified sticker I believe which is hardly an issue.

I guess it depends what you mean by "older". Take a look at my E8500 rig for example. It's hardly cutting edge now, but it still feels very fast and runs at over 4GHz. However, will it be "certified" for Windows 8, or is it gonna be locked out just because it lacks the very latest TPM DRM chip in it?

 

[erocker]

I guess it depends what you mean by "older". Take a look at my E8500 rig for example. It's hardly cutting edge now, but it still feels very fast and runs at over 4GHz. However, will it be "certified" for Windows 8, or is it gonna be locked out just because it lacks the very latest TPM DRM chip in it?

Doubt it. Microsoft is in the business of making money, of course they want you and everyone else to buy and use their new product regardless of the hardware you own.

 

[streetfighter 2]

UEFI, a key component of Windows 8, is designed to work on several CPU architectures, such as ARM and is streamlined and efficient. - FTA
LOL. The Register should probably hire a technical editor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface

This really sucks for cheap, exceedingly cheap, OEM boards that don't allow you to flash your BIOS/EFI . . . For everyone else, meh

Also, Microsoft is going to have to bribe the pants off the Unified EFI Forum to get them to make this change. I'm not saying they won't-- but they will have to.

Furthermore, I guess Microsoft won't be allowing virtualization of Windows 8? That should go over well with corporate consumers.

 

[TRWOV]

I guess it depends what you mean by "older". Take a look at my E8500 rig for example. It's hardly cutting edge now, but it still feels very fast and runs at over 4GHz. However, will it be "certified" for Windows 8, or is it gonna be locked out just because it lacks the very latest TPM DRM chip in it?

The UEFI requirement is for OEMs that want to enter the "Designed for Windows 8" logo program. Boutique vendors and self builders don't have to worry about this stuff.

The only problem I foresee is with laptops but I'm sure that some enterprising users or even a manufacturer or two will make sure that some models come with the option to turn off the signature.

 

[Dr. Nick]

One thing I'm wondering about is how some antivirus software will be affected by this.
Some of the software I've used and set up for friends and family on their PCs make use of a run-at-boot program to more efficiently clean the system. I hope this isn't going break that.

Also other things like DBAN or Memtest86+.

 

[digibucc]

if anything individual parts will be "certified" if only the motherboard bios has the chip, then only that will require it to be certified. so you can buy all certified components, or all but a motherboard.
there will surely be "enthusiast" motherboards that aren't "certified", they may come up with a moniker, like "windows 8 guaranteed" or "ready" or something.

this is really more for the likes of dell, gateway, acer, etc. who you know do care about being "certified".

it does show the direction microsoft is headed. i see them eventually only allowing hardware with drm to run windows.

 

[micropage7]

It will run on older hardware but the issue is that hardware won't be carrying a Windows 8 certified sticker I believe which is hardly an issue.

so we 'push' to trash our rig and buy newer which has uefi by ms.to run win8

 

[qubit]

Casio pays Linux protection money to Microsoft

To those of you that think I'm overreacting about Microsoft using BIOS signing to lock out Linux and other operating systems, check out this little extortion racket they're playing on Casio. Yeah, it's my belief that the whole SCO saga was orchestrated by Microsoft to try and make Linux illegal, it's just a shame that the cover-up was so good that the smoking gun wasn't found.

Microsoft Convinces Yet Another Company to Cough Up 'Protection' Money

from the you-wouldn't-want-something-bad-to-happen,-would-you? dept

Neppe alerts us to the news that Microsoft has claimed yet another victory in its war on the Linux Operating System. According to multiple reports, including Thinq_, the Register and others, Casio has coughed up an undisclosed amount of money to "license" the Linux operating system from Microsoft.

Microsoft has been claiming since 2007 that Linux infringes on 235 patents. If you go back to 2004, it was just 228. Despite the lack of any public list of these patents, Microsoft has been able to use them quite skillfully in convincing a number of software and hardware vendors to pay licensing fees. Microsoft claims that such licensing deals are for the benefit of the companies who pay up.

So just what are the benefits of paying Microsoft a licensing fee for free software, especially when said software was not developed by Microsoft? If these quiet settlements are any indication, the sole benefit would be to avoid being dragged through the courts by one of the largest software developers in the world. Seriously, what other benefit is there? Is there a collection of patent trolls jumping at the chance to sue companies using Linux that have yet to surface thanks to Microsoft's cradling licensing deals? Not that I have read about. The only patent holder jumping at the chance to sue over Linux is Microsoft itself.

What this really looks like to me is an old school protection racket in which the resident mob enters the new business or residence and demands protection money in order to protect said establishment from some malevolent threat.

Techdirt

 

[OneMoar]

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/09/22/protecting-the-pre-os-environment-with-uefi.aspx

 

[digibucc]

from the article:

Microsoft does not mandate or control the settings on PC firmware that control or enable secured boot from any operating system other than Windows

translation:

Microsoft mandates and controls the settings on PC firmware that controls or enables secured boot from Windows

so if an oem manufacturer wants their firmware to enable secure boot with windows, it will be controlled and mandated by microsoft.

in order to allow secured boot, they will need to follow msofts rules. since the signed os bit is part of UEFI anyway, i'm not sure what rules microsoft will impose, but this is fancy speak trying to hide the fact that they WILL mandate and control firmwares that enable secured boot for windows.

not saying that does or doesn't make sense, they just deliberately tried to hide that point.

 

[OneMoar]

hoooooooook now this is just turning into a anti-Microsoft thread again ... and no digi your wrong ..
it is NOT required to Run windows 8 its only Required IF you want they fancy "designed for windows 8 cert"
so here we go again people are over analyzing and creating dots to connect
tl;dr >
if a OEM Wants to have there machines labeled "made for windows 8" then they need to ship the board with Secure-boot Capable and it _enabled by default_ now this doesn't mean they WILL bother to include a option to disable it in the uEFI setup but thats not microsofts or the uefi.org 's problem
k we are done here

 

[digibucc]

i'm not wrong, and i already said that last night!

there will surely be "enthusiast" motherboards that aren't "certified", they may come up with a moniker, like "windows 8 guaranteed" or "ready" or something.

this is really more for the likes of dell, gateway, acer, etc. who you know do care about being "certified".

i don't even know what else to say. you had a prepared statement and were ready to direct it at whoever posted last. please explain how i am wrong with real thoughts this time, if you so choose.

 

[OneMoar]

i'm not wrong, and i already said that last night!



i don't even know what else to say. you had a prepared statement and were ready to direct it at whoever posted last. please explain how i am wrong with real thoughts this time, if you so choose.

[“Microsoft requires that machines conforming to the Windows 8 logo program and running a client version of Windows 8 ship with secure boot enabled,” Red Hat developer Matthew Garrett writes on his blog in reference to a recent presentation by Microsoft program manager Arie van der Hoeven. The Microsoft exec notes that UEFI and secure boot are “required for Windows 8 client” with the result that “all firmware and software in the boot process must be signed by a trusted Certificate Authority.”] >unless you turn it off

- you where late to the party on that one that was part of the ORIGINAL unedited announcement
[/offtopic]
and no I didn't prepare any _statements_ what I wrote is what I meant and its what ill stand by
the problem I have with the foss community in general has nothing todo with my posts I know Microsoft has a darkside and that has ZERO bearing on my post until its said and DONE all that exists is unfounded FUD and misunderstanding
I FULLY understand HOW IT COULD be used and it doesn't mean it WILL so jumping on the ideological lets-hate-microsoft bandwagon just because some of the foss community is BUTTHURT that there "Product doesn't have a 50% desktop market share does not give people the right to ASSUME that ""this is this and this will be used like this""
and to wander a bit more off the topic path since that seems to be the point of this thread ... the only one at fault for linux/GNU's lackluster "market-share" are the the coders and community that are responsible

 

[Drone]

tl dr. So iz teh skyz fallin'? Monopoly and monoculture will rule?

 

[OneMoar]

tl dr. So iz teh skyz fallin'? Monopoly and monoculture will rule?

hardly but at least someone gets my point
its all about the dollars and linux/GNU is no different
I could guarantee if that is Linux was as big and windows and was on every desktop pc
there would be ungodly amounts of cash involved and all kinds of corporate-reindeer-games
if Microsoft was GNU-linux and Linux was Microsoft then it would still be the same deal
back room deals and law suites up the yang hole

 

[Drone]

hardly but at least someone gets my point
its all about the dollars and linux/GNU is no different
could't guarantee if that is Linux was as big and windows and was on every desktop pc
there would be ungodly amounts of cash involved and all kinds of corporate-reindeer-games
if Microsoft was GNU-linux and Linux was Microsoft then it would still be the same deal
back room deals and law suites up the yang hole

Ah. I see. In our age big corporations "rule" and the end user gets less and less freedom and choice. And it's painful because the further we go the more we depend on software (than on hardware). And god forbid if hardware and software will both be controlled by someone.

 

[qubit]

hardly but at least someone gets my point
its all about the dollars and linux/GNU is no different
I could guarantee if that is Linux was as big and windows and was on every desktop pc
there would be ungodly amounts of cash involved and all kinds of corporate-reindeer-games
if Microsoft was GNU-linux and Linux was Microsoft then it would still be the same deal
back room deals and law suites up the yang hole

Yeah, I have to agree with this. Wherever there's big dollars involved the system will be corrupted. Still, it doesn't mean that we should sit back complacently and let it happen without any resistance. MS absolutely want to lock the PC down and shut out all competition, just like every other big corp, which is why we need these checks and balances in place.

As someone said, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, or something like that. It was somebody famous, I might google it later, lol.

 

[digibucc]

Wherever there's big dollars involved the system will be corrupted. Still, it doesn't mean that we should sit back complacently and let it happen

+1000

I FULLY understand HOW IT COULD be used

so that means I am not allowed to point it out? that's basically what you have said. i said nothing about open source software or microsoft being evil, i even disclaimed it because truthfully, there is no reason they shouldn't be able to set restrictions on what type of hardware can run it. that doesn't mean i like the change, or think it's good for consumers - but there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to do that imo.

and everyone else does it. that's your argument? that makes it all the more essential to stand up to every instance of it, not to berate people for recognizing it - as you have.

 

[OneMoar]

+1000



so that means I am not allowed to point it out? that's basically what you have said. i said nothing about open source software or microsoft being evil, i even disclaimed it because truthfully, there is no reason they shouldn't be able to set restrictions on what type of hardware can run it. that doesn't mean i like the change, or think it's good for consumers - but there is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to do that imo.

and everyone else does it. that's your argument? that makes it all the more essential to stand up to every instance of it, not to berate people for recognizing it - as you have.

THERE NOT SETTING Restrictions thats what you are NOT getting
it IS A OPTIONAL UEFI.org SPEC NOT A Microsoft one
http://www.uefi.org/learning_center/
http://www.uefi.org/learning_center/UPFS11_P2_SecureBoot_Insyde.pdf
Microsoft is making use of a OPTIONAL Tech and yall are having a panic attack
how much fking clearer can I be and according to the nice fking pdf that no one has seemed to rtfm'd in-order for a vender to be fully UEFI 2.3.1 compliant there needs to be a option to _disable secure boot_

 

[digibucc]

THERE NOT SETTING restrictions thats what you are NOT getting
it IS A OPTIONAL UEFI.org SPEC NOT A Microsoft one
http://www.uefi.org/learning_center/
http://www.uefi.org/learning_center/UPFS11_P2_SecureBoot_Insyde.pdf

you really have a hard time reading and responding to what someone says, don't you?

again:

since the signed os bit is part of UEFI anyway, i'm not sure what rules microsoft will impose, but this is fancy speak trying to hide the fact that they WILL mandate and control firmwares that enable secured boot for windows.

not saying that does or doesn't make sense, they just deliberately tried to hide that point.

my comment, was about the wording of that statement. (Microsoft does not mandate or control the settings on PC firmware that control or enable secured boot from any operating system other than Windows )

that's it. the statement is intentionally worded to make it sound as though microsoft will not enforce any restrictions, while actually saying they can enforce any restrictions on any hardware that uses secureboot and windows. i was wrong to say WILL, when CAN is the length of reason - however it's not far off to assume they WILL enforce control should it suit their interests.

as i said, you had a canned response that actually had no bearing on my post. but because you didn't take the time to read my post you missed that. you also seem to have a hard time admitting that, and so continue to argue with me about things i did not say, or what you think i do not know (though both times i have shown i stated it before you).

 

[OneMoar]

again its back to people "reading the empty space between the lines" you don't KNOW that the Microsoft statement was intentionally worded that way. when I read that statement I don't see that

and no THEY CANT ENFORCE SHIT Microsoft does NOT have any control over UEFI at best all they could do would be to change the windows boot loader to be incompatible with GRUB or what ever
you seem to be under the impression that Microsoft has direct control over what is signed and NOT signed by UEFI they don't uEFI.org DOES.
All Microsoft can do is supply a kms/cert and say here you go here are the keys for windows 8 used these to the authentication of boot loader ;else no windows 8 certification for you > require user to turn the "secure boot off" to boot unsigned code, also since a lot of UEFI based boards have "embedded Linux's the chance of UEFI NOT supporting GRUB on boards running " THERE"
firmware is low to nonexistent either way microsoft has no direct control over what UEFI.org signs or doesn't sign

 

[digibucc]

have a good day. ::hattip::

 

[[H]@RD5TUFF]

I read about this, if it's true I will no be upgrading, also I don't see how this can be legal!

 

[TRWOV]

I read about this, if it's true I will no be upgrading, also I don't see how this can be legal!

Because it is, there is nothing illegal about it. It's included in the UEFI 2.3.1 specification.