Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

mjg59.dreamwidth.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 178 posts

Re: Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

#11

Post by cookiecaper »

raylu wrote: post #3

What are the benefits of Secure Boot?

Secure Boot is ostensibly a security feature, making it impossible to load kernel-level code that hasn't been signed by an authority recognized by the device's hardware. The idea is that this makes it harder for nefarious actors to do nefarious things to your system, because they'll be blocked from the most basic access to the system hardware and be forced through normal OS security channels.

In practice, of course, it's just about solidifying lock-in with a cover story that's obviously weak to those with technical experience but is justifiable to politicians and regulators who would otherwise be all over MS for facilitating this kind of funny business.

Re: Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

#12

Post by InclinedPlane »

pfraze wrote: post #9
glesica wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should I have to agree to whatever terms MS has set forth just to be allowed to wipe their operating system off of my hard drive?

It's not ideal, but what are the actual effects?

A EULA is a legal document, it can contain myriad of terms. Indeed, most EULAs bind you to future as-yet-disclosed terms as well. That's no small thing.

Re: Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

#15

Post by Dylan16807 »

bcl wrote: post #8
Dylan16807 wrote: post #4

And in practice how many keyboards will this actually apply to?

It isn't the keyboard that is the problem, it is that the USB bus the keyboard is on won't be initialized.

Are you sure? I understand not waiting for slow hardware to settle, but the entire usb bus is going to get skipped, even the most lightning-quick hardware?

Re: Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

#16

Post by kogir »

It appears to me that both

  System.Fundamentals.Firmware.FirmwareSupportsUSBDevices
  System.Fundamentals.Firmware.FirmwareSupportsBootingFromDVDDevice
are required for Windows Logo Certification for both Windows 7 and 8: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/jj1...

Doesn't that directly contradict the hypothetical scenario presented in the article? Additionally, there's Windows 8 hardware out there already. Can the author provide no examples of this happening in real life?

Re: Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

#17

Post by mjg59 »

kogir wrote: post #16

It appears to me that both System.Fundamentals.Firmware.FirmwareSupportsUSBDevices System.Fundamentals.Firmware.FirmwareSupportsBootingFromDVDDevice are required for Windows Logo Certification for both Windows 7 and 8: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/jj1... Doesn't that directly contradict the hypothetical scenario presented in the article? Additionally, there's Windows 8 hardware out there a…

From System.Fundamentals.Firmware.FirmwareSupportsUSBDevices:

The USB controller and USB devices must be fully enumerated when: * Anything other than the Windows Boot Manager is at the top of the system boot order. * A boot next variable has been set to boot to something other than the Windows Boot Manager. * On a system where the Windows Boot Manager is at the top of the list, an error case has been hit, such that the firmware fails over from the Windows Boot Manager to the next item in the list. * Resuming from hibernate, if the system was hibernated when booted from USB. * Firmware Setup is accessed.

ie, it's not required for most normal boots on systems that already have Windows installed. System.Fundamentals.Firmware.FirmwareSupportsBootingFromDVDDevice merely states that the system must support booting from DVD, not that it must attempt to by default. And yes, I've observed this behaviour on real hardware.

Re: Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

#18

Post by mjg59 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #15
bcl wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't the keyboard that is the problem, it is that the USB bus the keyboard is on won't be initialized.

Are you sure? I understand not waiting for slow hardware to settle, but the entire usb bus is going to get skipped, even the most lightning-quick hardware?

Yes. USB init won't happen until the Windows kernel starts.

Re: Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

#19

Post by morpher »

kogir wrote: post #16

It appears to me that both System.Fundamentals.Firmware.FirmwareSupportsUSBDevices System.Fundamentals.Firmware.FirmwareSupportsBootingFromDVDDevice are required for Windows Logo Certification for both Windows 7 and 8: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/jj1... Doesn't that directly contradict the hypothetical scenario presented in the article? Additionally, there's Windows 8 hardware out there a…

Additionally, as point (18) on the page you linked to states:

    Mandatory. Enable/Disable Secure Boot.
      On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement the
      ability to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup. A
      physically present user must be allowed to disable 
      Secure Boot via firmware setup without possession of 
      PKpriv.
Doesn't this mean that (definitely on certified non-ARM systems, and possibly on some ARM systems) you can just enter the UEFI, disable secure boot, and boot your OS of choice?

Re: Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

#20

Post by npsimons »

pfraze wrote: post #2

What's wrong with agreeing to the EULA?

What's wrong with me setting my user-agent to "By allowing me access, you waive all rights and policies regarding my access." and then viewing your website? Hint: it's about as enforceable as a EULA, but just as obnoxious and offensive because it presumes too much and oversteps bounds. Still, in the grand scheme of things, my UA string makes more sense, as putting something online is practically tantamount to putting it in the public domain, whereas you can't perform perfectly reasonable and otherwise legal acts with your legally owned property unless you violate most EULAs.
Post reply on HN