New SecureBoot Concerns Arise With Windows 10

[Phexe]

even now, I still run all my systems in Bios/MBR mode because of how it lets MS OS's run the system rather than myself.

[GreatEmerald]

OK, so there ought to be some database of motherboard manufacturers (and possibly models) with descriptions about the quality of their UEFI implementations. That would be real handy.

[Sonadow]

OK, so there ought to be some database of motherboard manufacturers (and possibly models) with descriptions about the quality of their UEFI implementations. That would be real handy.

Aftermarket boards should have no problems with providing the option since they are not OEMs. DIY desktops should therefore be unaffected.

Notebooks, on the other hand...

[dimko]

If cannot be disabled then just flash bios version that has secureboot eliminated/disabled

1) Not all know how to do it.
2) It can and WILL brick some devices even for people who know how.
3) Some will simply not risk, which creates MAJOR artificial barrier for adoption.

So it's not as easy as you say.

I can see how a lot of laptops will be bricked already...

[dimko]

I love Facist Linux users, most of them are noobs users with 0 knowledge about the real world and 0 experience on IT.

First time reported someone for trolling on Phoronix.

[bnolsen]

Aftermarket boards should have no problems with providing the option since they are not OEMs. DIY desktops should therefore be unaffected.

Notebooks, on the other hand...

i don't build desktops anymore. really no reason to with the nucs out there now. I will still occasionally build a server class system for dev use.

[tuuker]

Have heard of Intel Boot Guard? Evil laugh..

I told from day one that this will happen.
Welcome to the world where you will need to jailbreak your laptop...

Sigh

Open source silicon is the only way around this madness but it won't happen soon I afraid.

1: replace southbridge

2: break into Intel production facility and use any means necessary to get those keys, freedom fighting sometimes needs hard results.

[Sonadow]

i don't build desktops anymore. really no reason to with the nucs out there now. I will still occasionally build a server class system for dev use.

I can't live with NUCs. I find them too limiting, especially since I cannot pack in a 3.5" HDD with 2TB of storage in a NUC. SO I'm still building my own desktops. Installing Linux on such machines is not going to be a problem since these aftermarket boards almost always offer the option to toy around with Secure Boot.

As stated earlier, it's the notebooks that I'm somewhat concerned about. I don't have any issues with using Windows, but I'd prefer my notebooks to run Linux natively. If i have to get a more expensive notebook from a Linux OEM like System76 then so be it.

[IM back!]

Life would have been better if we just stayed with BIOS.

I think microsofts intention has allways been to make secure boot impossible to disable, they just had thair old plolicy to make put every one at ease to spur adoption. Had they been serius about it they would have made arm windows 8 devices with optional secure boot. they cant manke mandatory secure boot an offical policy, not yet anyways, without geting fined by the EU. So they make it "optional" and secretly give the major oems incentives to make it manatory. Call me cyinical but thats what i think is happening.

Embrace Extend Exterminate, they have use similar tactics before

[KaoDome]

I don't feel anything bad happened here, I certainly understand some people may feel threatened by this but I don't feel we should be worried.

Windows 8 (and 8.1) requirements toward certification were more or less like this regarding Secure Boot:
- x86: Secure Boot enabled and possible to be disabled.
- ARM: Secure Boot enabled and impossible to be disabled.

So now Microsoft decides to change them so that in x86 at least they don't care whether it is impossible to disable or not. If I were a manufacturer my primary concern would be to sell the stuff I produce, so given the choice I'd keep allowing people to disable Secure Boot if they want to. Even being a low percentage, not doing so would reflect in less sells.

A different story would be if Windows 10 hardware certification requirements required the Secure Boot implementation to be impossible to disable, in that case I think most manufacturers would oblige to have their machines ship with the Windows logo (and the other benefits of that program).