UEFI secure boot

Tim Hanson tjhanson at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 28 05:46:39 UTC 2011

On Tuesday, September 27, 2011 01:46:39 am Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 07:14:36PM -0400, Rashkae wrote:
> > Am I the only one who thinks this is actually a good idea from MS?
> The fundamental problem here is that it is securing the wrong thing: it
> is securing the computer against changes by its legitimate owner and
> user (remember that this is only part of an entire stack of signature
> checks).  Sure, forbidding unauthorised changes to the system is one way
> to stop a class of attacks from progressing, but at what cost?
> Furthermore: if an attacker has acquired enough access to replace your
> boot loader, you have already lost.

The "cost" is that Microsoft, through proxies, has found another way to knee-
cap its rivals and attain its goal, which is 100% market share.  If Linux 
advocates criticize the attributes of the implementation, even if right, such 
criticism will fall on deaf ears.  Microsoft has never cared much about 
security except when the screams of users reach a high enough pitch to affect 
the bottom line.

More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list