| |||||||||||||
Most points are valid...Most points are valid...Posted Jan 18, 2012 13:57 UTC (Wed) by stumbles (guest, #8796)In reply to: Most points are valid... by khim Parent article: Garrett: Why UEFI secure boot is difficult for Linux Secure boot is a sham no matter which way its looked at.
(Log in to post comments)
Most points are valid... Posted Jan 18, 2012 17:14 UTC (Wed) by wdaniels (guest, #80192) [Link]
Agreed. When was the last time you actually found malware that was running from the bootloader? I know it can and does happen on occasion, but I've not actually seen it since the days of floppy disks and I doubt anyone I know has either.
Usually when we hear about these things it is some secret service or police force, and I don't expect those organisations will have much trouble signing whatever code they like.
And what about virtualisation? Are we going to see VM BIOS with secure boot? If we do I should think it will be changed to allow remote administration of keys for unattended installs etc. Just one more reason to head for virtualised infrastructure.
This whole UEFI thing is a complete waste of time. But hopefully it will encourage dedicated Linux hardware retailers...ultimately that's how the non-techies prefer to shop anyway.
Open source BIOS not looking so silly now! :D
Most points are valid... Posted Jan 18, 2012 17:57 UTC (Wed) by wmf (guest, #33791) [Link]
AFAIK there's a bootloader that bypasses Windows activation. Whether that's malware depends on whether you're Microsoft or not.
Most points are valid... Posted Jan 18, 2012 20:28 UTC (Wed) by Fowl (subscriber, #65667) [Link] Well Microsoft's anti-malware suite doesn't think so, at least. Surprisingly quite a few other vendors do though.
Most points are valid... Posted Jan 20, 2012 3:35 UTC (Fri) by hitmark (guest, #34609) [Link]
I seem to recall reading about a botnet of some kind that employed bootloader infection as a way to spread.
|
|||||||||||||