Matthew posted a good response yesterday:
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/23400.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5295272
Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position
31–40 of 147 posts
Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
The nice thing about SecureBoot is that there is no root key—you can have whatever keys you like installed on your system, you don't have to get permission from a central authority. If you want code signed with your key to run out of the box on random PCs, you just have to convince each PC manufacturer to include your key in the hardware key-store of the systems they ship, a purely independent transaction. It's just…
Yes, this is the issue I see in all this. None of the linux vendors banded together to create a NPO which would simply manage keys, ensure it was avialable to all manafacturers. Maybe even provide a logo/stamp/certification/brand so people can instantly see it's supported. The fact that ONLY Microsoft have done this isn't really the fault of Microsoft. The fact that devs can't agree on the most elegant way of providi…
What about Haiku, or any other OS which doesn't have a big enough community to get their key in? Why should OS installation be a privilege of popularity, with others forced to jump through hoops?
MS is at fault for pushing this whole system. Whether Linux distros could or not join the system is a red herring.
Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position
#33The 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…
What advantages would any system controlled by a central authority give you that a system which was entirely local and required specific manual intervention (e.g. typing in a pre-set password or private key) in order to authorize any change to the boot loader would not?
Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Linux servers are far more common than Windows servers, and servers usually have loads of bandwidth making them especially valuable targets for spammers and fraudsters.
Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Thinking about it, here is a bit more insidious (and complex) method:
The usb drive install a linux system over the previous windows installation. Then it install a VM, and set it to run the old windows installation. Have boot set to quiet and on startup, load up the VM.
While a bit slower, you now have hypervisor control over the machine, and the user can install how much anti-virus and anti-rootkits they want. You effectively eradicated the secure boot scheme with the help of the Red Hat key.
Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
even that one had Free DOS installed.
Handy for a quick memory test
Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position
#37From my read of the article, Linus simply states his preference to actually support secure boot (and verify signatures), or not support it at all. He thinks attempts to "Secure Boot" a loader which then allows arbitrary code execution are a waste of time, and they are. If you don't want boot time signature verification, you should turn it off, not break the chain of trust.
In fact, done right, perhaps hardware vendors that currently only provide binary blobs could be coerced into providing source. "Oh, you want to boot on our distribution? We don't sign blobs, but if you commit source we'll build and sign the module."
If ever hardware does come out that doesn't allow you to opt out of signature verification or provide your own keys, just don't buy it.
Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position
#38I 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…
[deleted]
Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
The nice thing about SecureBoot is that there is no root key—you can have whatever keys you like installed on your system, you don't have to get permission from a central authority. If you want code signed with your key to run out of the box on random PCs, you just have to convince each PC manufacturer to include your key in the hardware key-store of the systems they ship, a purely independent transaction. It's just…
Yes, this is the issue I see in all this. None of the linux vendors banded together to create a NPO which would simply manage keys, ensure it was avialable to all manafacturers. Maybe even provide a logo/stamp/certification/brand so people can instantly see it's supported. The fact that ONLY Microsoft have done this isn't really the fault of Microsoft. The fact that devs can't agree on the most elegant way of providi…
>MS is at fault for pushing this whole system. Whether Linux distros could or not join the system is a red herring.
What?!
Pushing UEFI, which isn't their design, which has been used by Apple and other for years, or pushing secure boot?
Secure Boot is a damned good idea, and whilst IANAL it appears that for a windows sticker you MUST allow it to be switched off.
So its Microsoft are in fact pressuring OEMs to ensure that people can run other OS's on their kit (except ARM).
What this is about is how the other OS's can get the benefit of SecureBoot, well, if they can't get their act together as I mentioend above, why should they fuss that someone else gets SecureBoot. Lets be hoenst too, most people who need such simple "mum proof protection" are on Windows anyway.
Re: Torvalds clarifies Linux's Windows 8 Secure Boot position
#40I 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 think the Germans were pretty concerned about this, too. I could definitely see a lawsuit against them there, considering how "weird" (but usually right) Germany is when it comes to things like these.
I'd love the European Commission to chime in, too.