Making UEFI Secure Boot Work With Open Platforms

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/making-uefi-secure-boot-work-with-open-platforms

by jagermo • 13 years ago

53 33 13 years ago

jagermo• 13 years ago

Link is mentioned in this debate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5658184

betterunix2• 13 years ago

Compliance with proprietary vendors' requirements? No thanks, I do not want Microsoft, Apple, Sony, or anyone else deciding how I use my computer. Shame that the Linux foundation cannot understand the most basic tenet of free software.

urza• 13 years ago

The coming civil war over general purpose computing https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4436139

bitcracker• 13 years ago

For this simple reason the Linux Foundation should stop wasting further energy for UEFI. As a Linux user from the very beginning (since 1992) I won't buy any UEFI device for Linux in general even if Linux would be 100% supported. I won't buy an expensive WinRT tablet just to put Linux on it.

When the Linux Foundation was founded I was happy to have a strong organization behind Linux. But today they make me really angry for supporting a system of someone who considered Linux, and the Open Source movement in general, as enemy. UEFI proves that they don't have changed their mind.

LF, please stop your unrealistic UEFI dreams, and please focus on the interests of the Linux community. I believe that most Linux users want functional hardware alternatives which will likely remain free from DRM restrictions. I would appreciate that even at the cost of incompatibility with the internet. In that case we would have to build our own new Internet, free from spam etc.

There are so many good devices like Raspberry and Beagleboard Black. They are powerful enough to be used as a desktop workstation when using a small and efficient Linux distro. Why not even enhance them with an e-ink display to make them a cheap alternative tablet pc that everyone can afford?

By the way, for the price of a single UEFI WinRT tablet we could build a whole server cluster of RPis or BBB.

throwaway20488• 13 years ago

Here is the major problem with UEFI Secure Boot. Microsoft only changed the reqirement that secure boot must be possible to disable after there was a public outcry, and are free to change it again any time.

They can either change a requirement to have the ability to disable it be optional, or make the inability to disable it mandatory, like on surface systems.

Thats the real issue. In very real way, Microsoft now hold the keys to the future of the x86 PC archecture, and I question why people are so ready to trust them considering their history.

The problem with supporting secure boot is it legitimizes microsoft's role as the gatekeeper to computing. Now with a straight face they can say to regulatory bodies "look at how many free and open source operating systems support secure boot, there is no monopolization here". They are then free to turn the screws, and make disabling secure boot impossible.

Not to mention distributions like fedora are making massive changes to restrict access to users of their os when it is booted via secure boot, to prevent windows from being "compromised". This is part of the agreement they signed to get keys signed by Microsoft. These signed keys can also be revoked by mictosoft at any time.[1]

I seriously do not understand why everybody has rolled over so hard on this issue.

[1] http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html

betterunix2• 13 years ago

"I seriously do not understand why everybody has rolled over so hard on this issue."

It is the same reason that Linus Torvalds and plenty of other people have no problem with TiVO, or even see it as a success. A lot of people in the open source community do not subscribe to the free software philosophy. For a lot of people, as long as they can boot Linux by some means and continue to hack, there is no problem, even if Microsoft's signing key is required in that process.

Plenty of people also live in a state of denial about the bootloader restrictions. They do not believe that Microsoft would ever deny anyone the ability to turn the restrictions off, or that Microsoft would otherwise prevent us from running GNU/Linux. How anyone can trust Microsoft to not abuse its power is a mystery to me, but there are lots of people here on HN who seem to have such trust.

At this point, I do not think there is any debate about the FSF's stance on the open source movement:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

throwaway20488• 13 years ago

I don't think the issue is the same as tivo, ie people have no problem getting locked out of their devices, I think the problem is that people are being deceived by the smokescreen that secure boot can (currently) be disabled (Through undefined, and very commonly broken/buggy mechanisms).

recoiledsnake2• 13 years ago

>like on surface systems.

Surface Pro ships with an unlockable bootloader. You can even remove Microsoft's own key and install your own so that Windows can't boot.

>They can either change a requirement to have the ability to disable it be optional, or make the inability to disable it mandatory, like on surface systems.

No, they cannot. The antitrust govt lawyers will be all over them if they want to try something like that.

>The problem with supporting secure boot is it legitimizes microsoft's role as the gatekeeper to computing

Microsoft doesn't mandate that their key must be the only one to ship by default. The fact that Linux community can't get together to make a signing infrastructure while the OEMs are willing to add keys is not Microsoft's fault.

>I seriously do not understand why everybody has rolled over so hard on this issue

Simple, because the user is in real control of their PC and can add/remove keys as they wish. And Secure Boot prevents the vast majority of non-techy users from getting undetectable bootkits installed on their machine.

throwaway20488• 13 years ago

>Surface Pro ships with an unlockable bootloader.

I was talking about surface systems, the arm ones with the locked boot loader, not surface pro, the similar naming only adds confusion to this issue.

>The antitrust govt lawyers will be all over them if they want to try something like that.

You totally ignored the point that now they can show antitrust lawyers all these linux distros and others that support secure boot! its not about maintaining a monopoly cough.

> Microsoft doesn't mandate that their key must be the only one to ship by default. The fact that Linux community can't get together to make a signing infrastructure while the OEMs are willing to add keys is not Microsoft's fault.

What about BSDs, what about haiku, what about the hacking project some guy wrote last week, should they all be held responsible "for not getting their act together" and getting OEMs to distribute their signing keys so Microsoft doesn't directly control their fate?

The point is that this is a very intentional barrier to entry, its exactly the same tactic Microsoft has been using for decades to shut out competitors, but its totally sincere this time, and only about protecting users? Sorry i don't buy it.

>Simple, because the user is in real control of their PC and can add/remove keys as they wish.

For now, and a requirement that was only added after Microsoft went ahead with requiring secure boot when people complained. They already distribute fully locked down systems, is it such a stretch to believe they will permit, or even mandate it in the future for x86?

Even if they never choose to lock down x86 systems entirely, why is this obvious conflict of interest being allowed to exist.

>Secure Boot prevents the vast majority of non-techy users from getting undetectable bootkits installed on their machine.

Anti-bootkit security does not imply UEFI Secure Boot where Microsoft controls the only key on every x86 PC of consequence.

jejones3141• 13 years ago

Alas, there's a long history of antitrust suits taking so long that the actions giving rise to them have had their intended effect and are no longer relevant.

sounds• 13 years ago

Please review recoiledsnake's comment history. This discussion unfortunately has been had before.

zokier4• 13 years ago

I find the argument "MS can change the requirement to make SB locked down" very fallacious. Sure, they could do that. But they could also do that even if we didn't have this unlocked SB thing that we do. In other words, Microsofts ability to require locked down SB is unaffected by current state of SB requirements. So there is no reason for outrage against MS about the current situation with SB on x86 platforms, because even if we didn't have SB now MS would still have the ability to make locked down SB mandatory.

If there is someplace that would need outrage, it would be the utter crap that gets shipped as the firmware, first as bios and now uefi seems to follow the same path. And the blame for that lies squarely at the hands of HW manufacturers.

>Not to mention distributions like fedora are making massive changes to restrict access to users of their os when it is booted via secure boot, to prevent windows from being "compromised".

Would you mind expanding on this, what are these "massive changes" you speak of?

throwaway20488• 13 years ago

Why is it fallacious to question the motives of a company that has used tactics like these many time previously? Its simply boiling the frog, overcome the initial opposition by offering a workaround, then when many linux distros support secureboot (solely via their authorization channels) they can begin applying more restrictions. This is the first item in the Microsoft playbook for stifling competition.

Even if you don't believe that is what they are going to do, why are they in a position to make it possible at all?

As for distro users being restricted, read the referenced blog post, stuff like no non-fedora signed kernel modules, no custom kernels.

Not to mention the cluster fuck with CAP_COMPROMISE_KERNEL currently brewing in kernel land:

http://lwn.net/Articles/542327/

The real problem being, that now kernel functionality is beholden on wither it can comprise an existing windows boot somehow when booting with secure boot.

NelsonMinar• 13 years ago

This PDF carries a date of October 2011.

drivebyacct26• 13 years ago

And as most people hopefully know, despite the random FUD here and on reddit, SecureBoot is simply not an issue for x86 computers. The only issues so far with Linux + SecureBoot were actually due to OEM bugs in the UEFI implementation. Ubuntu and Fedora both handle SecureBoot seamlessly. Other distros will follow, especially with the Linux Foundation finally releasing their shim loader late last year.

hexonexxon• 13 years ago

Theo de raadt already blasted Redhat and Ubuntu for instantly compromising and submitting to microsoft. Linux foundation non resistance makes no sense to me either since a lot of people who sit on the board are direct competitors to M$ you'd think they would want to save their companies from being at their mercy.

I'm waiting for when cloud o/s takes over that scans for pirate software/dissident behaviour or thought crime, and it becomes illegal to run your own operating system. There will be a Silk Road for computer hardware and guy's peddling BSD installs in dark alleys.

takluyver• 13 years ago

What should they have done? As I see it, they had three options with secure boot: find ways to work with it (as they have), try to get OEMs to disable secure boot or ship with a 'Linux key' as well, or ignore it and let users who want to install Linux deal with it.

Making users disable secure boot makes it that much harder and scarier to try Linux, so there would be even fewer users in the future. And I see no evidence that OEMs care enough about Linux to go out of their way to make life easier, even if someone did produce a 'Linux key' to sign all the major distributions. There are a precious few small OEMs that sell computers with Linux, but mostly to existing Linux users. If desktop Linux isn't going to fade into complete irrelevance, we're still crucially dependent on people experimenting with it on Dell/Lenovo/Acer Windows laptops.

guilloche• 13 years ago

No, this is not what I want, the secure boot is MS's evil plan and I want to get rid of the whole shit.

bitwize• 13 years ago

You're fighting an uphill fucking battle, Linux Foundation and here's why: UEFI, the standard, is so loosey-goosey, with so many bits unspecified, that the only real test of whether the system is compliant that actually matters is "does it boot Windows". It's rather like the Web back in the day, when we had HTML and CSS and all of that but the only standard that people applied was "does it look nice and work in IE5". We've already seen one UEFI implementation from Samsung that can brick the machine when a non-Microsoft (or even sometimes a Microsoft) OS is installed on it; and one from Lenovo that actually searches the strings of the boot image looking for either "Windows" or "Red Hat Linux" and refuses to boot otherwise. Expect more cock-ups of this sort, whether due to malice or incompetence, to follow. This isn't about a hardware-verifiable boot process, it's about multiple vendor-specific boot processes, the only thing they can be guaranteed to have in common is their capability to boot into a Microsoft OS. Those of us disinclined to trust Microsoft will see this as a largely successful attempt to decommoditize the boot protocol, as per the Halloween Documents.

Making UEFI Secure Boot Work With Open Platforms

Related Stories