M$ Sabotages UEFI “Secure Boot” for Linux Foundation

“the Microsoft sysdev people claim it was "improperly" signed and we have to wait for them to sort it out. I’ve pulled the binary apart, and I think the problem is that it’s not signed with a LF [Linux Foundation] specific key, it’s signed by a generic one rooted in the UEFI key.”

see Linux Foundation support for booting Linux on Windows 8 PCs delayed | ZDNet.

Just in time for Black Friday when a lot of UEFI-enabled hardware will be sold…

I have always thought it was a mistake to do anything in GNU/Linux the M$’s way. They will do anything to prevent GNU/Linux being more widely accessible for consumers. Expect nothing but “accidents”, failures, disasters and the inevitable legal suits to result. They’re all good for M$ keeping the cash-cow flowing a bit longer.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to M$ Sabotages UEFI “Secure Boot” for Linux Foundation

  1. eug says:

    Secure Boot bootloader for distributions available now

    http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/20303.html

  2. Interesting. Switching from BIOS to EFI is going to be a pain, because, for a while we will have to be capable both ways. I’m glad I have a lot of PCs here. Until Beast dies, I won’t need to look at that. By then, I hope installers will do everything automagically.

  3. eug wrote, “Secure Boot has arrived”.

    Yes, and it’s about time someone sued M$ for forcing it on the world. Were you able to disable it?

  4. eug says:

    Secure Boot has arrived

    A few weeks ago one of my computers, a desktop machine, called it quits after many productive years of service. Following a respectful period of mourning, I decided to go out and get myself a new desktop computer. Nothing fancy, just a nice low-end box. I settled on HP’s Pavilion P6-2310. The machine arrived in a timely manner, I hooked it up and realized that in my haste to get my shopping over with I had forgotten one important detail: Secure Boot.
    (…)

    http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20121126

  5. ram says:

    Robert Pogson wrote:

    “We, who buy motherboards, can RTFM first and figure out how the “Secure Boot” check can be turned off, at least for AMD64. In ARM, M$ has harmed competition in a much more serious way. That’s not much concern just yet because ARMed motherboards go mostly to OEMs but eventually the market will choose whether they want M$ to take over the ARMed world. I vote “no!”. I expect there will be a legal suit over this sooner or later.”

    Yes, but try to get a manual for a new (unpurchased) motherboard these days. It is not like the companies being paid by Microsoft to put in UEFI are announcing how it can be turned off, or if they even have left the user with that option.

    My company is an OEM and we have no trouble finding ARM motherboards that are certified for several flavors of Linux. Show me one, just one, motherboard for the AMD FX-8350 Vishera chips that is.

    Motherboards for Intel’s latest i7s are much less of a problem. They are even available in the mini-ITX form factor, and in a pinch Intel will sell you Linux compatible motherboards (from small embedded machines to high powered servers) directly. No such luck with AMD.

  6. lpbbear says:

    And this is a surprise????

    Not to me.

    This was totally predictable and quite a number of people pointed out way in advance this kind of thing would happen. A number of frigging IDIOTS in the Linux community blathered on about “can’t avoid”, “everybody’s doing it” blah blah blah. One of the biggest idiots who made the most excuses works at RedHat and most certainly should have known better than to trust Microsoft with this kind of industry wide control.

    The only answer to this is legal action against Microsoft on a major scale worldwide. Nothing else will work. Expect more of the same as time goes on if nothing is done about it legally.

    And now for any of those trusting idiots who might wander into your blog…RIF…..

    The Scorpion and the Frog

    One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.

    The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn’t see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

    Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

    “Hellooo Mr. Frog!” called the scorpion across the water, “Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?”

    “Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?” asked the frog hesitantly.

    “Because,” the scorpion replied, “If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!”

    Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. “What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!”

    “This is true,” agreed the scorpion, “But then I wouldn’t be able to get to the other side of the river!”

    “Alright then…how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?” said the frog.

    “Ahh…,” crooned the scorpion, “Because you see, once you’ve taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!”

    So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog’s back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog’s soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

    Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog’s back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

    “You fool!” croaked the frog, “Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?”

    The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog’s back.

    “I could not help myself. It is my nature.”

    Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

    Those in the Linux community too stupid to remember recent history with regards to Microsoft might want to reread some of the old fables.

    The only solution to scorpions is to crush them under your boot, never “trust” them to get you anywhere.

  7. ram wrote, “So where now can you get a Linux compatible motherboard (i.e. without UEFI) that uses the latest chips (e.g. AMD FX-8350, AMD A-series)?”

    We, who buy motherboards, can RTFM first and figure out how the “Secure Boot” check can be turned off, at least for AMD64. In ARM, M$ has harmed competition in a much more serious way. That’s not much concern just yet because ARMed motherboards go mostly to OEMs but eventually the market will choose whether they want M$ to take over the ARMed world. I vote “no!”. I expect there will be a legal suit over this sooner or later.

  8. ram says:

    So where now can you get a Linux compatible motherboard (i.e. without UEFI) that uses the latest chips (e.g. AMD FX-8350, AMD A-series)?

    Or are we forced to move to ARM servers?

  9. Average User says:

    According to:

    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/microsoft-to-lock-out-other-operating-systems-from-windows-8-arm-pcs-and-devices/10132

    Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols: The worse case is that Microsoft decides, “What the heck” and introduces lock out style UEFI secure booting on Intel PCs. While flirting with fire from the anti-trust action, I wouldn’t put it pass them.

    Bingo! Pogson, I think you hit the nail on the head. ;)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>