Linux Foundation waiting for MS to issue UEFI key. :)

[Snowhog]

Hehe.

Some say Ah-monds; some say All-munds.

[SteveRiley]

Yeah, but can I open that nut with any nutcracker, or do I need Secure Nutcracker? And will the food company attempt to block the use of unsigned nutcrackers? If they do, I will lose my temper!

[bsniadajewski]

I'm not an expert, but AFAIK, any machine that comes with Win8 requires a UEFI BIOS. MS requires it for Win8 certification.

Frank.

From what I understand, Win8 will work with BIOS-based systems as well as UEFI-based ones. (even those with SB disabled)

[SteveRiley]

From what I understand, Win8 will work with BIOS-based systems as well as UEFI-based ones. (even those with SB disabled)

Yes, that is correct.

[bsniadajewski]

Yes, it's possible. UEFI is independent of CPU type.

Good to know that.

I'm looking to (eventually) upgrade the MB/CPU in this thing, hence me wanting to ask.

(And, no, I'm not upgrading to 8 anytime soon, though I may go AMD, probably an Athlon II with a MSI board)

[Snowhog]

Yeah, but can I open that nut with any nutcracker, or do I need Secure Nutcracker? And will the food company attempt to block the use of unsigned nutcrackers? If they do, I will lose my temper!

This smacks of a perfect opportunity for SABOTAGE!

Secureboot
Advisory
Board
Overseeing
Testing and
Accreditation and
Government
Endorsement

[tek_heretik]

@Mr. Riley...thank for the kind beating, lol.

[SteveRiley]

Secureboot
Advisory
Board
Overseeing
Testing and
Accreditation and
Government
Endorsement

Wait. Are you actually asking for "government endorsement" of something?

Alright...who the hell are you and what did you do with the real Snowhog?

[james147]

To receive Windows 8 certification, OEMs of X86 hardware are required to provide a mechanism for users to disable Secure Boot. This is clearly stated in the published compliance documentation.

But from what I know on arm based system they require the opposite - that you cannot disable secure boot (at least that is what I heard) so I worry this requirement might eventually `slip` into the x86 arch requirements as well.

[SteveRiley]

You are correct about ARM-based machines. However, ARM is a different beast. ARM machines are system-on-chip, and thus aren't generally designed with the intention of being general-purpose machines with user-replaceable software. Of course, that hasn't stopped folks from doing that anyway -- witness the thriving Android rooting community.

The Windows 8 certification requirement for ARM that includes mandatory Secure Boot should be viewed as equivalent to carriers demanding locked boot loaders on phones. Interested folks who want to tinker with their ARM tablets will figure out ways around Secure Boot just like they've figured out how to circumvent locked boot loaders.

Now please don't infer from the previous that I agree with the notion. I'm opposed to all forms of lock-out mechanisms. Owners should be free to do whatever they want with their hardware. I'm simply illustrating that mandated Secure Boot on ARM is not without precedent. Furthermore, if Microsoft were to extend manded Secure Boot to X86, then that would most likely run afoul of stipulations in the Modified Consent Decree.

[Frank616]

Steve:

Thanks for the clarifications. I used the term BIOS in the generic sense. I see now that I was mistaken.

If the ability to disable secure boot is written into the specifications by MS, then this is all a big ado about nothing. However, people in the know are making a big deal over it. Why?

Frank.

[Goeroeboeroe]

I don't know if this if of any importance, but I didn't see anything about it on this forum. Matthew Garrett (ex-Red Hat) made a secure boot loader for all Linux distributions:
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20303.html
I know too little about this stuff to judge if it's of any importance.

[tek_heretik]

I don't know if this if of any importance, but I didn't see anything about it on this forum. Matthew Garrett (ex-Red Hat) made a secure boot loader for all Linux distributions:
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20303.html
I know too little about this stuff to judge if it's of any importance.

Wow, interesting read, thank you for posting.

[bsniadajewski]

Steve:

Thanks for the clarifications. I used the term BIOS in the generic sense. I see now that I was mistaken.

If the ability to disable secure boot is written into the specifications by MS, then this is all a big ado about nothing. However, people in the know are making a big deal over it. Why?

Frank.

My guess is maybe because it's Microsoft and who knows what Ballmer's boys are up to.

[SteveRiley]

If the ability to disable secure boot is written into the specifications by MS, then this is all a big ado about nothing. However, people in the know are making a big deal over it. Why?

The security problem that Secure Boot was designed to thwart isn't of sufficient threat to warrant the brittleness and rigidity of Secure Boot's design. So as a protective mesaure, the feature could be less restrictive and still accomplish something useful.

Of course, there's also...

My guess is maybe because it's Microsoft and who knows what Ballmer's boys are up to.

...the worry that, at some point, Microsoft might again try strong-arm tactics to lock out alternate operating systems. Because the company has historically abused its position multiple times, such worries are not completely misplaced.