Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 49

Thread: Linux Foundation Struggles With Microsoft UEFI Signing

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,824

    Default 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. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    275

    Thumbs down Not one little bit

    Why am I not amazed?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    458

    Default

    Quote 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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    18

    Default

    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    London
    Posts
    28

    Default 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...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,134

    Default

    Silverlight-based file uploader
    Not sure if serious...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote 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?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by d2kx View Post
    Not sure if serious...
    I seriously laughed out loud on this part.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,051

    Default 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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote 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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •