Garrett: Responsible stewardship of the UEFI secure boot ecosystem
So, to have Microsoft, the self-appointed steward of the UEFI Secure Boot ecosystem, turn round and say that a bunch of binaries that have been reviewed through processes developed in negotiation with Microsoft, implementing technologies designed to make management of revocation easier for Microsoft, and incorporating fixes for vulnerabilities discovered by the developers of those binaries who notified Microsoft of these issues despite having no obligation to do so, and which have then been signed by Microsoft are now considered by Microsoft to be insecure is, uh, kind of impolite?
Posted Jul 12, 2022 15:27 UTC (Tue)
by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)
[Link] (25 responses)
Wasn't this always the MSFT end-game? I mean, who is really surprised by this?
Posted Jul 12, 2022 16:11 UTC (Tue)
by ermo (subscriber, #86690)
[Link] (14 responses)
It's certainly possible.
It is, however, also possible that something happened behind the scenes internally at MSFT that the rest of us aren't (yet) privy to.
Hence, it might pay to hold fire until MSFT is given a chance to respond?
"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately be explained by incompetence" as the saying goes.
Posted Jul 12, 2022 16:28 UTC (Tue)
by khm (subscriber, #108825)
[Link] (7 responses)
Does that matter? It's the same end result, the inevitable outcome of anyone engaging in good faith with a massive corporation is always betrayal, generally the moment it becomes possible. The Microsoft apologists knew it was a scorpion, and decided to cross the river with it. I'm not sure that the complicated internal politics of bad behavior are relevant to the resulting bad behavior, unless we're looking to make more excuses.
Posted Jul 14, 2022 18:25 UTC (Thu)
by carenas (guest, #46541)
[Link] (6 responses)
Yes, because not giving them first an opportunity to clarify their position to this "apparent" change implies we are assuming bad faith and not willing to give the benefit of the doubt first.
It should be also obvious to anyone following recent news that this is not the biggest concern inside MSFT who just announced layoffs, so the possibility of just being a misunderstanding is more likely than usual IMHO
Posted Jul 15, 2022 3:30 UTC (Fri)
by linuxrocks123 (subscriber, #34648)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Jul 15, 2022 13:57 UTC (Fri)
by mattdm (subscriber, #18)
[Link] (2 responses)
This is a huge problem. It is hard enough for people to do a Linux install (even if they're not making the problem even harder for themselves by wanting preserve and dual-boot Windows on the same system).
Adding in "change your BIOS setting" is a big hurdle.
Add in "how you get to your BIOS settings is different on every computer! you probably hit a key during startup. really fast though, before it does other stuff. And what key it is will be different".
Add in "once you are in the settings, you'll get some weird gui, or maybe a text interface which, if you are old enough, you will remember as how your parents may have used computers"
Add in "okay, look around for a section that might have the relevant settings. we don't know what that section is called. it will be different from computer to computer. something with 'boot', or 'security', or something".
Add in "now, in this security section, find, like, the most obscure sub-section you can. excellent. change this one setting, which will have some name that sounds related to what we're talking about. it will probably have a warning telling you not to change it. also, don't change other settings because they might really make your system less secure."
And now, add in "some systems might not even have this setting. hope yours does!"
Posted Jul 15, 2022 14:47 UTC (Fri)
by excors (subscriber, #95769)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jul 17, 2022 9:44 UTC (Sun)
by geert (subscriber, #98403)
[Link]
Cfr. people "could not" switch to OpenOffice because it looked different than Microsoft Office, followed by Microsoft introducing "the ribbon"...
Posted Jul 15, 2022 23:55 UTC (Fri)
by jdulaney (subscriber, #83672)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jul 16, 2022 0:01 UTC (Sat)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
Posted Jul 12, 2022 16:37 UTC (Tue)
by bpearlmutter (subscriber, #14693)
[Link] (2 responses)
This makes sense regardless of whether or not it was accidental.
Posted Jul 12, 2022 16:54 UTC (Tue)
by donbarry (guest, #10485)
[Link] (1 responses)
The only solution is to demand a public trust hold these and administer them on behalf of computer users everywhere.
This is a time when Microsoft stands exposed (again) and such a demand can be raised and escalated. To defer endlessly to Microsoft is to once again lose the moment and either lose the battle now or set up one for a future loss -- nowhere is anything other than a perpetuation of the stalemate of the status quo ante a possibility without fighting for the control to be given up by Microsoft.
Posted Jul 13, 2022 16:52 UTC (Wed)
by midol (guest, #25855)
[Link]
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge...
In light of this, the characterization of the Linux community of Microsoft as being untrustworthy is an accurate description, no matter how heatedly presented.
Posted Jul 13, 2022 5:14 UTC (Wed)
by oldtomas (guest, #72579)
[Link] (2 responses)
So for corporations, I prefer this bastard made of Hanlon's razor and Clarke's third law "Any sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from stupidity".
CYA, plausible denial, diluted responsibility and all that.
For me, this practically means that Microsoft should get as much flak as humanly possible for this.
[1] sometimes, some people very much do, as the current Uber files thing chillingly shows.
Posted Jul 13, 2022 12:28 UTC (Wed)
by atnot (subscriber, #124910)
[Link] (1 responses)
I think this is the most useful framework to think about these things.
For example, imagine you are in charge of security at Microsoft. You propose to a wide array of security measures. Some of them require additional work in Windows, some of them require work from vendors and some would be easy to enable but require extra development to make work well with other operating systems.
Your boss is tasked with picking which of these things should be the companies priority this year. Which of these do you think will be at the bottom of the list? The measures start to roll out and you receive backlash. You earnestly suggested these security measures in good faith so you will of course defend them and be adamant that their purpose is security. But your good intentions were ultimately irrelevant, because filtered through bad incentives they created emergent evil.
"Is Microsoft good or bad" is a trick question, it's a blind self-feeding machine.
Posted Jul 15, 2022 19:09 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Unfortunately, as someone caught up in the disability/benefits/advocacy mess, you very soon realise that people *want* to be helpful, but are seriously constrained in what the law allows them to do (or they're in "cover your ass" mode, because if they don't they know the law will be looking for a scapegoat :-(
It's like GDPR - I don't consider it onerous - but I absolutely insist people I deal with provide me with proof they "opted in". Otherwise I'm setting myself up for an "unfortunate" interview with the police if things turn nasty.
Cheers,
Posted Jul 12, 2022 16:18 UTC (Tue)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (1 responses)
This is what you get when you dance with the (monopolistic) devil.
Posted Jul 12, 2022 16:59 UTC (Tue)
by donbarry (guest, #10485)
[Link]
The usual boogymen are trotted out to justify this -- if one can run one's own OS and one's own preferred programs under it, why the terrorists, child pornographers, and drug lords win. Only a criminal or maladjusted type (clearly a future criminal in their thoughtcrime) would be conspiracy mongering against the great corporations and governments in their control of our computing platforms.
Posted Jul 18, 2022 1:17 UTC (Mon)
by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359)
[Link] (7 responses)
I can’t read the article though. Cloudflare is blocking lynx. Can someone copy/paste it into here?
Posted Jul 18, 2022 8:46 UTC (Mon)
by pabs (subscriber, #43278)
[Link] (6 responses)
https://web.archive.org/web/https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/...
Posted Jul 18, 2022 10:55 UTC (Mon)
by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359)
[Link] (5 responses)
The answer to your parenthesised question is ECMAscript, and that people consider it a “hacking[sic!] tool” ☹ the lynx mailing list is full of visually impaired people reporting troubles.
Posted Jul 19, 2022 4:19 UTC (Tue)
by pabs (subscriber, #43278)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Jul 19, 2022 14:34 UTC (Tue)
by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359)
[Link] (3 responses)
Huh? Works for me…
Posted Jul 20, 2022 0:55 UTC (Wed)
by pabs (subscriber, #43278)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jul 21, 2022 17:20 UTC (Thu)
by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359)
[Link] (1 responses)
Maybe your CA bundle has something disabled or so? Also, (non)gnuTLS tends to use the batch file /etc/ssl/certs/ca-certificates.crt instead of individual files like OpenSSL, which is generated, and I had cases where it was out of date. (The file in sid is 195453 bytes.)
Posted Jul 22, 2022 0:02 UTC (Fri)
by pabs (subscriber, #43278)
[Link]
Posted Jul 12, 2022 16:56 UTC (Tue)
by mcon147 (subscriber, #56569)
[Link]
Posted Jul 12, 2022 17:14 UTC (Tue)
by neggles (subscriber, #153254)
[Link] (4 responses)
Of course, turning it off doesn’t fix all the other "Secure" Boot issues and bypass methods, so it’s a bit lame and half-assed, but that goes for everything related to W11 in my opinion…
Posted Jul 12, 2022 23:02 UTC (Tue)
by Smon (guest, #104795)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jul 14, 2022 0:51 UTC (Thu)
by timrichardson (subscriber, #72836)
[Link]
Posted Jul 13, 2022 19:50 UTC (Wed)
by timrichardson (subscriber, #72836)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jul 14, 2022 7:09 UTC (Thu)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Given the grief I'm having, and I suspect Secure Boot may be responsible, despite Windows never having touched the laptop ...
The *achievement* may well be to ensure x86 only ever runs Windows.
Cheers,
Posted Jul 12, 2022 21:52 UTC (Tue)
by flussence (guest, #85566)
[Link]
Posted Jul 15, 2022 1:13 UTC (Fri)
by jdulaney (subscriber, #83672)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jul 16, 2022 14:52 UTC (Sat)
by cbushey (guest, #142134)
[Link]
Posted Jul 17, 2022 17:53 UTC (Sun)
by johannbg (guest, #65743)
[Link]
It might have bragged about it's DAS system, Microsoft Aware, it's offender/Youth/Pretrial 360 or someother platforms it's selling but directly bragging about help putting children in cages doubt it since it bad for biz if it did so link plz where Microsoft is actually doing that.
Posted Jul 24, 2022 8:09 UTC (Sun)
by ssmith32 (subscriber, #72404)
[Link]
(1) Apple locks their computers down a fair bit (particularly if you lump gianormus phones into small computers)
(2) My system76 desktop is not, and never will be, affected by this, as far as I can tell..
(3) My current job, and the few jobs before that, all involved Mac laptops being the standard computer given out.
So, to me, this sounds like yesterday's battle. But MSFT is making lots of money, somehow. So it probably affects some population of people, I'm just not sure who...
Color me shocked...
Color me shocked...
Color me shocked...
Color me shocked...
> Does that matter?
Color me shocked...
Color me shocked...
Color me shocked...
Color me shocked...
Color me shocked...
Color me shocked...
Color me shocked...
Color me shocked...
Color me shocked...
Color me shocked...
Color me shocked...
Color me shocked...
Wol
Color me shocked...
Color me shocked...
Color me shocked...
Color me shocked...
Color me shocked...
Color me shocked...
Color me shocked...
> web.archive.org
Color me shocked...
Color me shocked...
Color me shocked...
Garrett: Responsible stewardship of the UEFI secure boot ecosystem
Garrett: Responsible stewardship of the UEFI secure boot ecosystem
Garrett: Responsible stewardship of the UEFI secure boot ecosystem
I use my own secure-boot signing-keys and PCR-7 value for my TPM2.0.
Garrett: Responsible stewardship of the UEFI secure boot ecosystem
Garrett: Responsible stewardship of the UEFI secure boot ecosystem
Garrett: Responsible stewardship of the UEFI secure boot ecosystem
Wol
Garrett: Responsible stewardship of the UEFI secure boot ecosystem
Garrett: Responsible stewardship of the UEFI secure boot ecosystem
with apologies to whomever is inconvenienced
Garrett: Responsible stewardship of the UEFI secure boot ecosystem
Garrett: Responsible stewardship of the UEFI secure boot ecosystem