Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 94

Thread: The State Of Linux Distributions Handling SecureBoot

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Not a problem that linux needs to deal with. It's MS security flaw. period. Imagining that these flaws happen because you boot linux is the farse.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    If security was my primary objective, then I promise you, I would not choose windows.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    Not a problem that linux needs to deal with. It's MS security flaw. period. Imagining that these flaws happen because you boot linux is the farse.
    How would Microsoft prevent the booting of bootkits without also preventing the booting of Linux?

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    I don't know how many more times this needs said. It doesnt matter. It's MS's problem.

    The obvious first answer though is, don't get infected in the first place. But that isnt going to happen. Windows 8 --WILL-- get just a infected as every other windows has ever been. And secureboot isnt going to do shit to prevent that. But thats their problem. Not ours.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mjg59 View Post
    Unlike the forced bundling of IE and Windows, Microsoft aren't actually forcing anyone to do anything here.
    Right. So forced bundling of browser and forced bundling of OS are not ok, but forced bundling of own closed signature in order to start are ok. Of course. Yes.

    But there is even better way, which is probably not seen yet. To spin off own Linux/BSD-only hardware.

    An OEM distributor, that is greedy enough to take market share of personal computing needs only to risk making an NDA with one of top motherboard producer brands in order for them to deliver Coreboot friendly logic.
    The hardware can be 86-based, granted the order is large enough. Several parties are already in position to do this.

    Two attack vectors. We are just waiting for MS to make a SECURE step into own grave - all by itself. The end will be the beginning.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by duby229 View Post
    I don't know how many more times this needs said. It doesnt matter. It's MS's problem.
    And, like I said before, Microsoft have solved the problem. You dislike the solution they've picked. Come up with a better one that offers the same level of protection.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mjg59 View Post
    And, like I said before, Microsoft have solved the problem. You dislike the solution they've picked. Come up with a better one that offers the same level of protection.
    duby229, if you come up with own hardware, I will support you.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    Right. So forced bundling of browser and forced bundling of OS are not ok, but forced bundling of own closed signature in order to start are ok. Of course. Yes.
    No, that wouldn't be OK. But Microsoft haven't forced anyone to. You can sell a computer with Windows 8 without implementing Secure Boot, it just means that Microsoft won't give you marketing money. Your choice.

    An OEM distributor, that is greedy enough to take market share of personal computing needs only to risk making an NDA with one of top motherboard producer brands in order for them to deliver Coreboot friendly logic.
    The hardware can be 86-based, granted the order is large enough. Several parties are already in position to do this.
    Why use Coreboot? AMI, Phoenix and Insyde will all sell you a UEFI implementation without Secure Boot, and your hardware would still boot Windows. No need to sign any NDAs with any vendors. Why artificially limit your potential customer base?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    There is coreboot as an alternative to uefi. If I find myself fucked someday because of secureboot, I'll be sure to jump on the coreboot wagon. Matter of fact I might just jump on it as a pre-emptive strike.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mjg59 View Post
    No, that wouldn't be OK. But Microsoft haven't forced anyone to. You can sell a computer with Windows 8 without implementing Secure Boot, it just means that Microsoft won't give you marketing money. Your choice.



    Why use Coreboot? AMI, Phoenix and Insyde will all sell you a UEFI implementation without Secure Boot, and your hardware would still boot Windows. No need to sign any NDAs with any vendors. Why artificially limit your potential customer base?
    Why are you even posting here? Defending secureboot? Dissing coreboot? What is wrong with you? You've got some serious issues man.

Posting Permissions

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