Stand up for your freedom to install free software

[srs5694]

Originally Posted by stevea

Wow that really missed the issue -

I was trying to correct some fundamental misconceptions in the original post (and others on this topic). Without an accurate understanding of the issue, a person will be led to incorrect conclusions and make sub-optimal decisions. I was not trying to address every aspect of the issue as a whole, just those areas where old or inaccurate information seems to be running amok.

MS confirmed that first concept, potentially disable by EOMs (not necessarily end users) only on a blog. Has there been an official statement ? The Win8 cert does not require 'enable'. That's not the same as requiring 'disable'.

As your subsequent post shows, the Windows 8 certification does require that end users have the ability to enable or disable Secure Boot. The blog post you mention is probably Matthew Garrett's first blog post on the subject, although it contains some key details that are now outdated. For instance, that post was made before Microsoft added the need for the user to be able to disable Secure Boot or add their own keys. Too many people are aware of the issue as originally publicized, but have failed to absorb subsequent revisions that make the issue much less troubling in the short term, albeit still something that could become a serious threat in the future.

So you might be able to dual-boot win8 and F18, but perhaps no other end-user Linux.

That's incorrect. You'll be able to add your own key and sign any boot loader you want to sign; or you can disable Secure Boot entirely; or you can pay $99 to Verisign and get any binary you want signed with Microsoft's key. Granted, these options all require at least a little effort, and disabling Secure Boot may have negative security implications, particularly if you run Windows a lot. Still, they are (or will be, since Secure Boot is still mostly theoretical) options, so suggesting they won't be possible is incorrect.

Also a disable-able secure boot is fundamentally insecure, which suggests this is not M$ final position.

True, and I've said so. I even pointed out that future developments could be more of a threat in the text you quoted and claimed was "missing the issue."