Linux Group Files Complaint With EU Over SecureBoot

[GreatEmerald]

There are certain boards that don't have an option to turn off Secure Boot, I saw one being mentioned in one of the previous Secure Boot threads. And actually, there is one mentioned in James Bottomley's post comments, the HP G7 Pavilion.

I also find this particular complaint to be a bit misguided. Secure Boot, as long as it has a mandatory opt-out option, doesn't really break any laws. The ones breaking it are board manufacturers that ship broken UEFIs, and that's who should be punished for it. About time to do that, too, since BIOS and UEFIs have a long history of being utterly broken.

The UEFI of the PC I'm currently on couldn't even boot anything off EFI files, as it would cause it to immediately crash. In fact, it wouldn't even recognise EFI files as executable if they were on NTFS partitions. And that's required for the Windows installer to run, even, not Linux. So the neglect there is mind-boggling. Thankfully it was (quietly) fixed in a subsequent update to the UEFI. I've also seen a report that some other UEFIs from the same manufacturer would only boot entries named "Windows Bootloader" or such. Again it was solved in an update, but how do they let such issues happen in the first place is beyond me.

And traditional BIOSs are not much better. Just yesterday I battled with one BIOS just to boot GPartEd. And I lost, for the moment. That BIOS is so utterly broken that it wouldn't boot off any USB storage whatsoever. Trying to boot GPartEd results in a black screen with "_" shining in it. And trying to boot something even simpler, like memtest86+, results in... the system immediately rebooting. Yeap. I could leave it there, and it would be stuck in an infinite booting loop forever, never getting to the point where it's supposed to try booting the executables in the first place. And that's not all - disabling USB 2.0 makes it ignore attached USB keyboards. It detects USB storage devices, but not keyboards, no. even despite the fact that USB keyboard support is explicitly enabled in the BIOS settings and there is no reason why they couldn't run over USB 1.0. So that's just horrible. I'm not even sure how I'm supposed to update the firmware there, given that it hates USB devices so much.

[yogi_berra]

There are certain boards that don't have an option to turn off Secure Boot, I saw one being mentioned in one of the previous Secure Boot threads. And actually, there is one mentioned in James Bottomley's post comments, the HP G7 Pavilion.

Don't forget all of the Chrome Books.

[droidhacker]

Microsoft should have every right to secure their systems as they see fit. This endless whining over SecureBoot is getting ridiculous.

Ok, let them secure.. THEIR systems.

NOT MINE!!!!

[Sonadow]

This complaint has zero merit. Microsoft has already clearly mandated in their Win 8 specifications that any OEM which ships a PC preloaded with Win 8 must:

- Enable Secure Boot, and
- Must provide an option in the UEFI menu to disable AND manage the keys, therefore the user is still in charge of what goes on in the computer.

If you got Wind 8-preloaded notebooks or PCs lying around without the option to disable SB or manage SB keys, the OEM is the one fully at fault for shipping a machine with a broken UEFI implementation and is in violation of the Windows 8 certification program.

Matthew Garrett himself has already specified that UEFI + Secure Boot can also be used in such a way to ensure that no Microsoft operating system can be installed on a machine by simply deleting Microsoft's key in the UEFI board. That's end-user control for you.

[Gps4l]

This is completely incorrect. you don't even have to boot windows 8 once to install SuSE on a win8 certified PC. You can go straight into the BIOS setup and disable Secure Boot, delete the platform keys and what not (and replace them with your own keys if you wish). This takes 30 seconds, at most.

I just did so on two random production laptops last week. Took me literally that - 30 seconds - before I could install a Linux OS.

The amount of FUD by folks in this thread is just incredible. Please stop spreading nonsense, and educate yourself.

For a good read, go and read Matthew Garrett's blog - http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/

And please, stop repeating nonsense, you're only adding to the misinformation.

Don't believe me? Try James Bottomley's HOWTO describing how to own your own system: http://blog.hansenpartnership.com/ow...uefi-platform/

Not everybody wants to remove w8.
Allot want to dual boot.
Go check oenSUSE forum and see for your self how many people are having problems, installing Linux.

[peppepz]

This complaint has zero merit. Microsoft has already clearly mandated in their Win 8 specifications that any OEM which ships a PC preloaded with Win 8 must:

- Enable Secure Boot, and
- Must provide an option in the UEFI menu to disable AND manage the keys, therefore the user is still in charge of what goes on in the computer.

Installing a browser other than IE is much easier than installing cryptographic keys inside a BIOS. And unlike the latter, installing a browser is a fully standardised procedure (so non-Microsoft browser vendors can tell their potential customers "here, perform these steps to install our browser"). Yet, the EU fined Microsoft for almost a billion because even the mere fact of having a default browser installed into every PC was deemed anti-competitive.

So this complaint has everything it takes to make Microsoft reconsider their decisions lest they shell another couple hundred millions.

[mdias]

Ok, let them secure.. THEIR systems.

NOT MINE!!!!

Microsoft doesn't go into your home and modify YOUR PC to be locked... You most likely buy it already locked, your fault... Choose an unlocked one. Vote with your money.

Microsoft console, yes.

Personal computer - NO.

So, what's the difference EXACTLY? If both come with stickers saying "locked to MS OS" they're the same shit, different OS. Make yourself a favor and choose a non-locked PC.

[Sonadow]

Installing a browser other than IE is much easier than installing cryptographic keys inside a BIOS. And unlike the latter, installing a browser is a fully standardised procedure (so non-Microsoft browser vendors can tell their potential customers "here, perform these steps to install our browser"). Yet, the EU fined Microsoft for almost a billion because even the mere fact of having a default browser installed into every PC was deemed anti-competitive.

So this complaint has everything it takes to make Microsoft reconsider their decisions lest they shell another couple hundred millions.

The EU fined MS big over IE because they believed that Microsoft was not playing fair by not informing users that alternatives existed. Honestly, that kind of flawed judgement should not even have had its day on the courts; anybody who uses the Internet will have heard of things like Chrome (especially when accessing Google.com; Google just loves to advertise its Chrome browser in every search) and Firefox.

This is not the same case with Secure Boot. Microsoft has already clearly mandated AND publicly announced its requirements that cryptographic keys in Secure Boot must be manageable at the UEFI level by the user if they want to change it. As far as obligations are concerned, Microsoft has already informed its users that Secure Boot is activated in a machine preloaded with Windows 8, and they have every ability to disable or modify Secure Boot any way they see fit if they are so inclined.

If a machine does not have such features, shoot the OEM for the broken UEFI implementation, not Microsoft.

Lastly, Linux users take pride in being superior to the Windows-using herd, so the only reason they are complaining are either
a) it's Microsoft, and any anti-Microsoft news is always great to spread more FUD
b) they are too incompetent to change an option in the UEFI menu (barring broken UEFI implementations which the OEM should be 100% responsible for) and just want to use (a) to spread more FUD.

Either way I see it, it's FUD, FUD, FUD and more FUD. If it ever goes to court, this will be one of the handful of cases which I will fully support Microsoft and hope that they win the judgement.

[duby229]

The facts are the facts... If they cause you to experience Fear Uncertainty and Doubt then that is the entire problem.

[nullone]

It does have merit but beyond your little world

This complaint has zero merit. Microsoft has already clearly mandated in their Win 8 specifications that any OEM which ships a PC preloaded with Win 8 must:

- Enable Secure Boot, and
- Must provide an option in the UEFI menu to disable AND manage the keys, therefore the user is still in charge of what goes on in the computer.

If you got Wind 8-preloaded notebooks or PCs lying around without the option to disable SB or manage SB keys, the OEM is the one fully at fault for shipping a machine with a broken UEFI implementation and is in violation of the Windows 8 certification program.

Matthew Garrett himself has already specified that UEFI + Secure Boot can also be used in such a way to ensure that no Microsoft operating system can be installed on a machine by simply deleting Microsoft's key in the UEFI board. That's end-user control for you.

Your world may rain, it does not mean others can not enjoy sunshine.
Do not think only from you point of view.

Plus, please do not talk about technology only from the point of view of technology, but from the reality and all human's abilities.

Monopoly can also be that the big company use some methods which seem fair but eventually lure the market to benefit the company much more than the rival, or can even hut the rivals.

Most times, it not as simple as 1 + 1. But, we all know that, don't we?

Do not play naive, please.