Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Foundation Struggles With Microsoft UEFI Signing

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Linux Foundation Struggles With Microsoft UEFI Signing

    Phoronix: Linux Foundation Struggles With Microsoft UEFI Signing

    James Bottomley has written about the problems being faced by the Linux Foundation in having a Microsoft-approved validly-signed UEFI pre-bootloader...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTIzMjE

  • #2
    Not one little bit

    Why am I not amazed?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by dimko View Post
      Why am I not amazed?
      They treat their customers like shit at the OS level, follows that they would do it at the customer support level too. That's why I'm not amazed anyway.

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm not a SecureBoot expert, but doesn't this completely defeat what Microsoft officialy wants to achieve with secureboot?
        I.e.: A "hacker" could use that publicly available signed bootloader and use it to preload before Windows and make secureboot completely pointless?

        Just asking. Hope someone can clarify this.

        Comment


        • #5
          And so it begins...

          And so it begins... UEFI is unleashed upon the world and the Linux Foundations is having issues with proprietary technologies from Microsoft. The fact the we need a "Microsoft UEFI Signing" process is really sad. One can only guess how much grief this will generate down the road. I'm pessimistic about this one...

          Comment


          • #6
            Silverlight-based file uploader
            Not sure if serious...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by d2kx View Post
              Not sure if serious...
              Same here. I mean, Silverlight is pretty much discontinued, why require it to update the UEFI?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by d2kx View Post
                Not sure if serious...
                I seriously laughed out loud on this part.

                Comment


                • #9
                  EU

                  EU really needs to something about this.

                  Silverlight required for the uploader is just icing on the cake, they just made it to fuck with us.
                  Microsoft even deprecated Silverlight.

                  Really fucked up that we need the permission of Microsoft to run our system.

                  SecureBoot is so flawed in everything from its design to implementation.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                    EU really needs to something about this.

                    Silverlight required for the uploader is just icing on the cake, they just made it to fuck with us.
                    Microsoft even deprecated Silverlight.

                    Really fucked up that we need the permission of Microsoft to run our system.

                    SecureBoot is so flawed in everything from its design to implementation.
                    I must fully agree with you here, all this is just grotesque, i can't find another word.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Legal action is needed.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Cannot be easier:
                        1. have a MS live account
                        2. have a tool to handle MS Cabinet files and wrap your bootloader binary int it
                        3. have a tool to sign MS Cabinet files
                        4. have a MS OS that can run Silverlight to upload the signed binary

                        Four steps and four times the work MS in it

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by DeiF View Post
                          Legal action is needed.
                          This. Requiring Silverlight for the signing process is absolutely unacceptable. They must provide an alternative way of doing it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            personally I see this as nothing to worry about. Considering how poorly Windows 8 is doing and the fact that implementing this UEFI seems to be a pain in the ass for hardware vendors, i don't think this will last. I'm sure most hardware manufacturers will just say "screw it, this isn't worth the effort and customer complaints".

                            I'm sure that most people who buy a system with Windows 8 on it and intend to replace it with another OS will not be putting linux on it but probably android.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by matyas View Post
                              And so it begins... UEFI is unleashed upon the world and the Linux Foundations is having issues with proprietary technologies from Microsoft. The fact the we need a "Microsoft UEFI Signing" process is really sad. One can only guess how much grief this will generate down the road. I'm pessimistic about this one...
                              Don't bundle UEFI with secure boot like that. They are not the same thing and neither is bad. And while UEFI can be cancerous -depending on the morons that implemented it (read intel)- secure boot implementation that requires something from a "competing company" is equally stupid.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X