>99.999% of people buy computers with preinstalled windows. If they are computer-litrate enough to install windows, they are literate enough to authorize a new Windows boot sector (the hash/fingerprint of would be printed on a new Windows media or sticker).
I wouldn't have a problem with Microsoft's preinstalled key if I had reason to believe this will work well when you authorize other keys.
I'm assuming that you didn't understand what I wrote. For pre-installed Windows to work, it has to have the Microsoft keys enrolled. That's why their keys come preinstalled. If they weren't preinstalled, Windows wouldn't boot. That was my point about the 99.99%. I'm not sure what you're getting at, I assume you didn't understand. (And no, pressing "Next", "next", "next" in an installer is not the same as enrolling private keys into a write-only area of your computer's BIOS).
>I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'm willing to sell for a good price if you believe that.
Ok, I'll put you in the category of people that swore for years that Motorola's bootloader protection would be hacked. That was... 3 years now since they introduced that and nary a vulnerability found?
>PS3, XBox, XBox 360, Wii, iPhone {2G,3G,3GS,4,4S}, iPad {1,2} and many other devices all have secure boots. And all have, in the past, been rooted by software or a combination of software and minimal physical access.
Oh, you just don't know what you're talking about (or what Secure Boot is, one of the two). Only the Xbox 360 had boot verification in the style of secure boot and it was never compromised. [1] The others did NOT use a hardware based bootloader verification. The only other mainstream usage of this style (that I'm aware of) is Motorola's signed bootloaders
[1] While the Xbox was attacked via Hypervisor vulnerability, a timing attack found (both of which were fixed remotely) and now through electroshocking the CPU, the verified boot itself was not compromised.
The point isn't that Microsoft also has its keys loaded.
But right now, nobody can ensure that any other keys will be able to be added, mostly because it is up to the hardware vendors to implement that, and windows right now is the only one giving them an actual incentive, i.e. money.
Most people will agree that SecureBoot itself isn't evil, quite the contrary, that it is useful, and that it is useful to everyone. But right now, the minimum hardware vendors have to implement is "boot Windows with SecureBoot and be able to disable SecureBoot". The point is, how do we get others to be able to use SecureBoot just like Microsoft is allowed to from the very get go.
The problems in user freedom do not arise from SecureBoot as a technology, they arise from Microsoft being in from the get go, giving incentives to hardware vendors to ensure that things work for Microsoft, and that's it. Unless a way can be found to also reliably sign other systems (Linux, BSD etc.), SecureBoot and Microsoft's position as the a priori trusted software vendor make for two classes of software: Software working out of the box (=Windows) and that not working (=everything else).
There is no incentive whatsoever for manufacturers to give people control over their computers, and that is the crux.
> There is no incentive whatsoever for manufacturers to give people control over their computers, and that is the crux.
The incentive is that the Microsoft hardware certification requirements demand that they do (point 17 of System.Fundamentals.Firmware.UEFISecureBoot). Whether that proves to be a good (or even enforced) incentive is hard to know until the hardware ships, but saying there's no incentive is inaccurate.
>There is no incentive whatsoever for manufacturers to give people control over their computers, and that is the crux.
I agree and I think this is the interesting part of the discussion (not the vilify Microsoft part). I guess don't see any reason why they wouldn't. They could have not allowed users to reinstall their OS or forbidden non HDD boot in the past by forcing it in the BIOS.
It's hard to explain because this is another step where they will have to provide the ability but to me, they could have done something like this at any point in time (the OEMs, that is) and they didn't. Will they now? I guess that remains to be seen, but I see it as an issue almost separate from UEFI. Maybe the UEFI folks could have made a stronger recommendation and required licensing that included forced terms of user key enrollment? I certainly would be in favor of that in the interest of user freedom!
I think the important point is that Secure Boot flips the default.
We always expect manufacturers to "do nothing" if they can get away with it. Pre-Secure Boot, doing nothing meant you could install whatever OS you wanted (subject to other hardware limitations, of course). Post-Secure Boot it will mean that you probably can't (even if there's a mandated escape hatch, how well will it be tested? And so on).
> Ok, I'll put you in the category of people that swore for years that Motorola's bootloader protection would be hacked. That was... 3 years now since they introduced that and nary a vulnerability found?
Yes. The trajectory on companies getting secure bootloaders right points in a clear direction: they're on their way to getting it right!
This makes me unhappy, but unfortunately, it's taking longer and longer to jailbreak devices, with the exception of Apple devices. (Unfortunately, this seems to indicate a need to brush up on security on their part.)
I'm assuming that you didn't understand what I wrote. For pre-installed Windows to work, it has to have the Microsoft keys enrolled. That's why their keys come preinstalled. If they weren't preinstalled, Windows wouldn't boot. That was my point about the 99.99%. I'm not sure what you're getting at, I assume you didn't understand. (And no, pressing "Next", "next", "next" in an installer is not the same as enrolling private keys into a write-only area of your computer's BIOS).
>I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I'm willing to sell for a good price if you believe that.
Ok, I'll put you in the category of people that swore for years that Motorola's bootloader protection would be hacked. That was... 3 years now since they introduced that and nary a vulnerability found?
>PS3, XBox, XBox 360, Wii, iPhone {2G,3G,3GS,4,4S}, iPad {1,2} and many other devices all have secure boots. And all have, in the past, been rooted by software or a combination of software and minimal physical access.
Oh, you just don't know what you're talking about (or what Secure Boot is, one of the two). Only the Xbox 360 had boot verification in the style of secure boot and it was never compromised. [1] The others did NOT use a hardware based bootloader verification. The only other mainstream usage of this style (that I'm aware of) is Motorola's signed bootloaders
[1] While the Xbox was attacked via Hypervisor vulnerability, a timing attack found (both of which were fixed remotely) and now through electroshocking the CPU, the verified boot itself was not compromised.