Thoughts concerning UEFI "Secure Boot" Requirements...

[ardvark71]

Hi all...

I happened to notice this as I was taking a look at FSF's web site. If this is implemented the way they are warning about, then this could pose a problem for Linux and its users. I haven't heard of this until now. What are your opinions on this (UEFI) and do you feel FSF's claims are valid?

I didn't sign the statement as I didn't agree with some of it's provisions.

Regards...

[SteveRiley]

Re: Thoughts concerning UEFI "Secure Boot" Requirements...

As a security concept, secure boot is interesting. Software that roots its trust in hardware is definitely much more difficult to attack.

As an implementation, secure boot enables lock-in. It's troublesome that the logo program mandates secure boot be enabled. I wouldn't have a problem with this if the logo program also mandated that consumers be given a choice on first-boot and mandated that manufacturers not hide the configuration options in the BIOS/UEFI menu. But unfortunately, these two notions aren't part of the program.

As an effective mitigator of practical risk, secure boot is a much lower priority than the press seems willing to report. It has no power to stop attacks that are far more damaging: identity theft, transaction spoofing, botnets, and electronic funds laundering, among others.

[ardvark71]

Re: Thoughts concerning UEFI "Secure Boot" Requirements...

I wouldn't have a problem with this if the logo program also mandated that consumers be given a choice on first-boot and mandated that manufacturers not hide the configuration options in the BIOS/UEFI menu. But unfortunately, these two notions aren't part of the program.

Hi Steve...

Thank you for your thoughts

I would hope, at the very least, that manufacturers will put options in the BIOS as opposed to leaving UEFI in a separate chipset on the motherboard, unalterable and inaccessible.

Regards...