Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position • Hacker News Board

Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position

#21

Post by jwoah12 » Thu, Feb 28, 2013, 2:12 PM UTC

rwmj wrote: post #11

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #4

The thing about secure boot is that it is a GOOD idea done very badly indeed. What was needed was for a trusted neutral party(or two) to be the owner of the root key, and for that organisation to hand out child keys (e.g. Microsoft, Open Source Initiative, Apple, etc) who could in turn generate child keys (all of which could be revoked). Essentially we need the "internet model" of key exchanges for this too. I cannot…

The real use for secure boot is within a single company/organization where you want to control exactly what runs on the computers you own. That's an argument for secure boot to be switched off by default, and for the companies that want it to manage their own keys. Although Microsoft will now point at me and say "but, but we need to prevent boot sector viruses!" it's telling that no other operating system except Wind…

> it's telling that no other operating system except Windows commonly suffers from this problem.

This is an honest question, as this area isn't my specialty, but could this be for the same reason that people used to perpetuate the myth that Macs don't get viruses? Attackers simply target the platform with the largest market share.

Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position

#22

Post by rplnt » Thu, Feb 28, 2013, 2:13 PM UTC

muyuu wrote: post #19

rplnt wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly is illegal? Selling a machine with OS or not selling it without one? And as for the "this explains then why ThinkPads must come with Windows" - no. It doesn't explain it. Secure boot has to be present on Windows certified machine, not the other way around. Lenovo can sell whatever they want (but apparently it's beneficial for them economically to only sell Windows machines). Also, certified machine has t…

Having firmware locked to only work under a given OS. It's pretty much a textbook definition of anticompetitive practice.

First of all, the firmware does not prevent you to use other OS. Only one function is locked to Windows and it seems Microsoft is open to allowing others to boot with it [sidenote].

Secondly, every single iPhone/iPad is locked to boot iOS; most of the phones with Android are locked as well. (And obviously Windows phones are locked too). And by locked I mean locked, not few clicks away from using the device as you wish (as is the case with notebooks and desktop computers). How come it's not rendered illegal?

Sidenote: I agree with the fact that Microsoft shouldn't be the one deciding who gets the key and who doesn't. My opinion on this is that if everyone can't agree on one impartial organization then hardware manufacturers should be the one deciding it. Obviously it would be best if users could add their own keys.

Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position

#23

Post by meaty » Thu, Feb 28, 2013, 2:14 PM UTC

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #4

The thing about secure boot is that it is a GOOD idea done very badly indeed. What was needed was for a trusted neutral party(or two) to be the owner of the root key, and for that organisation to hand out child keys (e.g. Microsoft, Open Source Initiative, Apple, etc) who could in turn generate child keys (all of which could be revoked). Essentially we need the "internet model" of key exchanges for this too. I cannot…

No it's a shit idea from end to end.

Any PKI based system is a shit idea unless you are personally in control of the trusted root CA, which in this case you're not. I think that is what Linus is saying.

Google for "certificate authority compromised" and you'll see what utter wads of shit for brains this could be entrusted to.

Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position

#24

Post by krenel » Thu, Feb 28, 2013, 2:15 PM UTC

TheAnimus wrote: post #14

speeder wrote: post #7

I always thought that the secure boot is a very, very, very bad idea. In fact the whole UEFI in general I think it is a clusterfuck of mishmashed random ideas, some good, many bad. What I intend to do personally, is attempt to don't use secure boot. And this all might explain the e-mail I got from Lenovo 10 minutes ago... I asked them for a non-Windows machine. They replied saying that they from now on only manufactu…

I just bought a UEFI laptop in Vietnam that was Lenovo brand, it came unlicensed with windows, but fully supports secure boot in to it. Are you sure this isn't just a regional sales thing, not selling a Windows Free version in that teritory?

As rplnt as said: > but apparently it's beneficial for them economically to only sell Windows machines

Maybe in Vietnam it happens just the opposite. It's easy to sell a computer _without_ Windows that with it.

I don't get why the companies cannot sell "empty" laptops without OS installed, thought.

Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position

#25

Post by aphexairlines » Thu, Feb 28, 2013, 2:17 PM UTC

How are PC vendors hoping to sell laptops to corporate buyers whose IT departments want to reimage all those machines (a lot of them with Linux images) without wasting time going into UEFI setup menus to turn off Secure Boot one machine at a time?

Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position

#26

Post by BMarkmann » Thu, Feb 28, 2013, 2:32 PM UTC

rplnt wrote: post #20

bad_user wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about multi-boot? From my understanding that isn't going to be possible anymore.

It is possible with disabled secure boot. Windows 8 doesn't need Secure Boot or even UEFI to work. It's only about the "Certified" sticker. And theoretically, Grub (or something) can have the key signed.

(Asking out of ignorance...) Signed by whom? Who are the trusted CAs for secure boot? Can you import an arbitrary certificate as trusted?

Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position

#27

Post by etherealG » Thu, Feb 28, 2013, 2:33 PM UTC

aphexairlines wrote: post #25

How are PC vendors hoping to sell laptops to corporate buyers whose IT departments want to reimage all those machines (a lot of them with Linux images) without wasting time going into UEFI setup menus to turn off Secure Boot one machine at a time?

these cases are more easily covered by the corporation's key being included in those machines. big numbers of machines warrant that kind of effort from the manufacturer. the problem is when I want to generate my own key and use that as the only authority. the system doesn't support that model.

Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position

#28

Post by btilly » Thu, Feb 28, 2013, 2:37 PM UTC

JonnieCache wrote: post #10

belorn wrote: post #8

> What they've told us privately is that as long as no-one comes along with a plausible exploit for Windows based on using a secure boot enabled Linux system, they don't care what we do. I guess we need to hide all those forensic distributions that can modify and access data on a windows machine. To name a few: backtrack, CAINE, and DEFT. If technology can modify and access data, it can also be used in an exploit. So…

RTFA. "This 'plausible exploit' has to be some way of getting ordinary Windows users to run the code and become compromised, it's not an experienced Linux user becoming root and subverting Windows on their local box."

I do not think that you understand the suggested attack scenario.

Pen testers are already familiar with the idea of leaving compromised USBs in a parking lot. A lot of normal users will pick one up, carry it in, and plug it into their computer to see what's on it.

If the USB key will send your data to a third party, without user understanding or intervention, then that's a security problem.

Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position

#29

Post by mimiflynn » Thu, Feb 28, 2013, 2:39 PM UTC

rplnt wrote: post #13

speeder wrote: post #7

I always thought that the secure boot is a very, very, very bad idea. In fact the whole UEFI in general I think it is a clusterfuck of mishmashed random ideas, some good, many bad. What I intend to do personally, is attempt to don't use secure boot. And this all might explain the e-mail I got from Lenovo 10 minutes ago... I asked them for a non-Windows machine. They replied saying that they from now on only manufactu…

What exactly is illegal? Selling a machine with OS or not selling it without one? And as for the "this explains then why ThinkPads must come with Windows" - no. It doesn't explain it. Secure boot has to be present on Windows certified machine, not the other way around. Lenovo can sell whatever they want (but apparently it's beneficial for them economically to only sell Windows machines). Also, certified machine has t…

I think the issue is: to buy a Lenovo machine is to buy Windows. There is no other option but to have to pay for Windows with your machine. One can't just buy a laptop with nothing on it. This can be seen as unfair to the customer in many countries and therefore, illegal.

Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position

#30

Post by phowat » Thu, Feb 28, 2013, 2:42 PM UTC

rplnt wrote: post #13

speeder wrote: post #7

I always thought that the secure boot is a very, very, very bad idea. In fact the whole UEFI in general I think it is a clusterfuck of mishmashed random ideas, some good, many bad. What I intend to do personally, is attempt to don't use secure boot. And this all might explain the e-mail I got from Lenovo 10 minutes ago... I asked them for a non-Windows machine. They replied saying that they from now on only manufactu…

What exactly is illegal? Selling a machine with OS or not selling it without one? And as for the "this explains then why ThinkPads must come with Windows" - no. It doesn't explain it. Secure boot has to be present on Windows certified machine, not the other way around. Lenovo can sell whatever they want (but apparently it's beneficial for them economically to only sell Windows machines). Also, certified machine has t…

What is illegal is not selling a computer without an operating system. From what I understand, brazilian law considers the PC and OS two different products and it is illegal for a company to only sell you one product if you also buy another one tied together. In my company, we buy all our servers and workstations from Dell and it never comes with a Windows license unless you explicitly request to the sales person. Although, I remember at least one case where we bought a laptop and the seller said it would come with the most basic windows 7 version because it was free for that particular laptop model. I don't know what would have happened if we insisted in having it shipped without it.