On 09/23/2011 10:58 AM, Frank wrote:
>
> Check
> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-8-PCs-with-UEFI-Secure-Boot-Won-t-Lock-Out-Other-Platforms-223377.shtml

Check:
<http://www.google.com/webhp?complete=0#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&complete=0&site=webhp&source=hp&q=uefi+%2 Bubuntu&btnK=Google+Search&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.& fp=15d8226b480c5dc5&biw=1280&bih=736>
[sorry haven't figured out how to get all of the garbage out of google
search links anymore]

and

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UEFIBooting
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EFIBootLoaders
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FoundationsTeam/Specs/MaverickUefiSupport
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/foundations-m-uefi-support
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub-installer/+bug/779589

No. No idea other than the links above, but it does show that Ubuntu has
been aware of UEFI booting for some time.




--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

On 27/09/11 07:14, Rashkae wrote:

Am I the only one who thinks this is actually a good idea from MS?


This so-called secure boot applies only to UEFI and not BIOS.

But yes, I think it's a good idea that Windows 8 cannot be installed in
BIOS computers (currently more than 99% of all existing computers), that
Windows 7 (or older) cannot upgrade to Windows 8.



Microsoft revenue stream, since Wins 98, has been from upgrades.

I'll be cheering if they do that.



--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

On 27/09/11 10:35, NoOp wrote:

No. No idea other than the links above, but it does show that Ubuntu has
been aware of UEFI booting for some time.


True, but it's still buggy even in 1.99
https://answers.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub2/+question/166162
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubiquity/+bug/820723

Best to prepare disk device first (bios_grub, flag boot, etc) before
installing.


Regards - Goh Lip



--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

On 09/26/2011 07:29 PM, Avi Greenbury wrote:


The bigger flaw is that you're assuming the user is in a position to
make that judgement as to whether to allow the code to run, and in a
position where they actually care. Neither of these are generally true,
as we can see with attitudes towards current, conventional, malware.


Maybe Microsoft just wants to catch up to Apple, with regards to
controlling the masses and their hardware. That would fit, according to
my usual paranoia.


In the end what will be telling is what outfits like Tiger will offer
according to what is purchased. If the market is great enough for
non-UEFI bios design motherboards, then they will be offered for sale. Ric



--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

On 09/27/2011 12:29 AM, Ric Moore wrote:
> On 09/26/2011 07:29 PM, Avi Greenbury wrote:
>
>> The bigger flaw is that you're assuming the user is in a position to
>> make that judgement as to whether to allow the code to run, and in a
>> position where they actually care. Neither of these are generally true,
>> as we can see with attitudes towards current, conventional, malware.
>
> Maybe Microsoft just wants to catch up to Apple, with regards to
> controlling the masses and their hardware. That would fit, according
> to my usual paranoia.
>
> In the end what will be telling is what outfits like Tiger will offer
> according to what is purchased. If the market is great enough for
> non-UEFI bios design motherboards, then they will be offered for sale. Ric

'Better still be over-clockable.

Fred

--
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it
tougher for sober people to own cars." - Unknown


--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

On 09/27/2011 12:41 AM, Fred A. Miller wrote:

On 09/27/2011 12:29 AM, Ric Moore wrote:

On 09/26/2011 07:29 PM, Avi Greenbury wrote:


The bigger flaw is that you're assuming the user is in a position to
make that judgement as to whether to allow the code to run, and in a
position where they actually care. Neither of these are generally true,
as we can see with attitudes towards current, conventional, malware.


Maybe Microsoft just wants to catch up to Apple, with regards to
controlling the masses and their hardware. That would fit, according
to my usual paranoia.

In the end what will be telling is what outfits like Tiger will offer
according to what is purchased. If the market is great enough for
non-UEFI bios design motherboards, then they will be offered for sale. Ric


'Better still be over-clockable.


This new ASUS board of mine claims to be in "auto-overclock" mode. I
have no clue what that is supposed to mean or do. Ric


--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 04:04:01PM -0400, Bill Stanley wrote:
> Often when you upgrade Ubuntu the grub boot-loader is modified.
> Would changes to GRUB would be forbidden? How would the Ubuntu
> upgrade work?

We really don't know at this point. We'd certainly not accept an
architecture that forbids changes to GRUB. In an architecture that
requires a signed boot loader image, we'd have to arrange for it to be
signed somehow, but it's not clear where, with whose key(s), and how to
preserve the requirement that users should be able to install modified
versions of GRUB (remember that it's licensed under the GPLv3).

--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@ubuntu.com]

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

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.

--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@ubuntu.com]

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 07:35:19PM -0700, NoOp wrote:
> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UEFIBooting
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EFIBootLoaders
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FoundationsTeam/Specs/MaverickUefiSupport
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/foundations-m-uefi-support
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub-installer/+bug/779589
>
> No. No idea other than the links above, but it does show that Ubuntu has
> been aware of UEFI booting for some time.

All of the above links concern UEFI, but not "secure boot". UEFI has
been around for quite a while and "secure boot" is a rather recent
optional addition to it.

--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@ubuntu.com]

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users

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.

--
ubuntu-users mailing list
ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users