Secure Boot Debate
Comments debate the effectiveness of UEFI Secure Boot in preventing boot-time attacks and malware, its compatibility with non-Windows OS like Linux via custom keys, and misconceptions about it enforcing vendor lock-in.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
Doesn't this prevent using UEFI secure boot mechanisms?
secure boot does not solve such problem.
Wouldn't something like Secure Boot help against that though?
There is no way that is true the way it is going with UEFI, secure boot, etc...
No secure boot doesn't prevent this directly. Secure boot checks for the booting OS. Boot guard is what checks the booting BIOS.
if you can add keys and sign things on the fly secure boot doesn't matter. it only protects you from downward payloads. if the one above the one that cares about secureboot is compromised its useless. you're confused because it's sold differently from this.
Secure boot works fine on PCs -- it's not all or nothing.
Secure Boot cannot possibly be useful to prevent the installation of other operating systems. Microsoft has a website where they will accept other operating systems to be signed, and there are multiple non-MS operating systems in existence that will boot with no fuss on a machine with Secure Boot enabled. The claim that Secure Boot is bad because MS could decide to stop signing Linux is as ridiculous as the claim that Authenticode is bad because MS could decide to stop signing Firefox, or that H
It concerns computers with Secure Boot - technology that checks if bootloader that you are loading is signed (which is supposed to mean it's safe). It will be needed for Windows 8 certification as optional on x86 and impossible to turn off on ARM - and those things aren't easy to hack around.Of course, the problem is whose keys will be in the trusted set in your BIOS? The ones from Microsoft for sure (and they will happily sign anything they are asked to by US intelligence), and probably some
Secure boot doesn't preclude using any software you like.