Secure Boot, and it's status with Windows

[Alexander Nicholi]

This article tells us about the Secure Boot feature in the UEFI BIOS, that forces all operating systems to use manufacturer-identified cryptographic signatures to identify themselves at boot. There's also talk about it being non-optional with Windows 10. What are your thoughts?


Honestly, I think it's a load of shit. Corporate interests want to control everything that goes into people's computers, that's what I think. They want control of people's digital lives - I don't want that. The discussing done in the article about preventing boot-level viruses is meaningless - that's all of a sudden an issue, and our solution is this cronyist thing? Where only big names can have a place? It's not an issue, at all. I don't like Secure Boot and heaven help me if Windows decides to fuck up another operating system by forcing it with their already useless thing. If they want me to jump to Linux that badly, then okay.

 

[Buoysel]

Here's my thoughts on it. Don't look at it from our prospective. The meer fact that you are on this section of PokeCommunity means you are not the intended target of this security feature.

I'll explain.

At the cooperate environment that I work in, there are >350 people and two IT people. So that means that less than 1% of the people in the building are probably even capable of installing their own OS. Look at the majority of Microsoft's users. They are not tech savvy people. Hell, most of them probably don't know the difference between Google Chrome, and google.com (I'm not even joking with this, work at an IT help desk if you think I'm joking). These are the people Microsoft is trying to protect with this security feature. Using my example above, Microsoft's new requirement for the OS affects 99.5% of it's user base. (It's probably actually higher). You also need to take into consideration that this only affects OEMs. So this will only affect store bought computers that have windows pre-installed, which again, are only going to be bought by the 99.5% of people mentioned above. The rest of us will more than likely have our own custom built PC, which Windows won't require Secure Boot on.

TL;DR
The only ones who are concerned about this issue are the ones who are not going to be affected by it.

 

[Tsutarja]

I applaud Microsoft in their efforts of wanting to keep users secure from harm. However, I do think that they should at least come to sense and realize that there are experienced users that do know their shit and wish to have the ability to install other operating systems on top of Windows.

 

[Guest123_x1]

Since Microsoft first published a secure boot requirement with Windows 8, I can't believe this is intended for anything about securing the average PC from malware and rootkits. I knew the requirements would eventually come to this.
The stricter SecureBoot requirement for Windows 10 (or for that matter, the original requirement with Windows 8) has not a doggone thing to do with protecting against malware, and everything to do with enforcing Microsoft's operating system monopoly. Unfortunately, I don't think the DOJ will even get after them this time around (like they did in the 1990s when MS bundled Internet Explorer irremovably with Windows 98), considering our whole federal government (and very likely the EU as well) is under the control of major corporate special interests.
Not to mention the expanded requirements will do wonders for PC sales-expect sales to plunge to early-to-mid 1980s (the very beginning of the PC era) levels after Windows 10 is released. (Never mind with more and more people moving their daily tasks exclusively to smartphones, I can easily see the PC going the way of other relics of the past, such as incandescent light bulbs, CRT televisions, and landline telephone systems.)

The rest of us will more than likely have our own custom built PC, which Windows won't require Secure Boot on.

The question is, what's to stop Microsoft from expanding their mandate to off-the-shelf stock motherboards that DIY enthusiasts and computer repair shops buy to custom build PCs? Considering the powers I outlined above, they can require anything they want out of any manufacturer of Windows-compatible hardware and get away with it in the end.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

Since Microsoft first published a secure boot requirement with Windows 8, I can't believe this is intended for anything about securing the average PC from malware and rootkits. I knew the requirements would eventually come to this.
The stricter SecureBoot requirement for Windows 10 (or for that matter, the original requirement with Windows 8) has not a doggone thing to do with protecting against malware, and everything to do with enforcing Microsoft's operating system monopoly. Unfortunately, I don't think the DOJ will even get after them this time around (like they did in the 1990s when MS bundled Internet Explorer irremovably with Windows 98), considering our whole federal government (and very likely the EU as well) is under the control of major corporate special interests.
Not to mention the expanded requirements will do wonders for PC sales-expect sales to plunge to early-to-mid 1980s (the very beginning of the PC era) levels after Windows 10 is released. (Never mind with more and more people moving their daily tasks exclusively to smartphones, I can easily see the PC going the way of other relics of the past, such as incandescent light bulbs, CRT televisions, and landline telephone systems.)

The question is, what's to stop Microsoft from expanding their mandate to off-the-shelf stock motherboards that DIY enthusiasts and computer repair shops buy to custom build PCs? Considering the powers I outlined above, they can require anything they want out of any manufacturer of Windows-compatible hardware and get away with it in the end.

This is something I fear more than anything for PCs, because it marks the end of transparency between user and machine. The sociopolitical magnitude behind that notion is huge.

And it all starts with anti-trust violations. Kicking everyone else off the curb to force the consumer into your bad business.