dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
10
share rss forum feed


FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to markofmayhem

Re: FSF Publishes Important Whitepaper on Secure Boot

It's interesting for me and possibly others, and published on numerous sites, simply because it is FSF's 'official' opinion, whether agreed with or not. I'm not gonna censor their position .



markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5

said by FF4m3 :

It's interesting for me and possibly others, and published on numerous sites, simply because it is FSF's 'official' opinion, whether agreed with or not. I'm not gonna censor their position .

»/news

Censorship does not include intelligent review and cessation of spreading diseased rhetoric.

The technical hypocrisy and contradictions in this "white paper" are appalling. It is a propaganda document, not a white paper. Linux is the technical OS, "white paper" means something to us. Use a different definition else where.

Linux is strong, stable, and elegant to compete on its own merits without the need for lies, fear, uncertainty, doubt, deception, and other immoral tactics employed. Has defeat been sounded? Linux can only now spread if we lie about the others?
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix


FF4m3

@bhn.net

said by markofmayhem:

spreading diseased rhetoric

I'm OK with your analysis and allowing it to be posted.

So whining at me will achieve nada.

Tell the FSF.


markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5

said by FF4m3 :

said by markofmayhem:

spreading diseased rhetoric

I'm OK with your analysis and allowing it to be posted.

Huh? To allow means power to disallow exists... explain?

said by FF4m3 :

So whining at me will achieve nada.

Perhaps not this time, but I can dream of a day of coming to ATU without anonymous people spreading anti-Microsoft FUD posts all over the place and actually read posts that deal with "THINGS UNIX" instead of the new ATU which is quickly becoming ATAM.

said by FF4m3 :

Tell the FSF.

We have. There are reasons official Linux organizations and foundations don't link-back. Hatred and ignorance are for the weak, let them also choose to perish alone.
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix


Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
reply to markofmayhem

The FSF consistently criticizes all devices, including hardware that ships with iOS and Android, for blocking device owners (or trying to block them at least) from being able to put different software. They also criticize iOS for only allowing software that comes from its store and not allowing third-party installation like Android does.



FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to markofmayhem

said by markofmayhem:

said by FF4m3 :

said by markofmayhem:

spreading diseased rhetoric

I'm OK with your analysis and allowing it to be posted.

Huh? To allow means power to disallow exists... explain?

Geesh man, it's not rocket science. This is a moderated public forum. You and the rest of us are permitted to post.

Anyway, dispensing with all the previous drama, I've sent the FSF a link to the this thread.


markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
reply to Maxo

said by Maxo:

The FSF consistently criticizes all devices, including hardware that ships with iOS and Android, for blocking device owners (or trying to block them at least) from being able to put different software. They also criticize iOS for only allowing software that comes from its store and not allowing third-party installation like Android does.

Good, and I know who they are. When they are honest and truthful, good for them. When they use uncertainty and doubt to instill fear, they were best left to be silent.
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix


markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
reply to FF4m3

said by FF4m3 :

Geesh man, it's not rocket science. This is a moderated public forum. You and the rest of us are permitted to post.

Anyway, dispensing with all the previous drama, I've sent the FSF a link to the this thread.

C'mon, man, register... you've contributed to this forum long enough to deserve being timely placed in-line

And couldn't you find a pro-Linux article to post once-in-a-while? Please
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix


FF4m3

@verizon.net

said by markofmayhem:

And couldn't you find a pro-Linux article to post once-in-a-while? Please

I've been running Linux for almost 15 years and am a 100% FOSS supporter.

I support free speech and an open exchange of differing perspectives, even through disagreement.

I do not favor intentional OS lockouts and resulting unrequested and undesirable user constraints.

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

1 recommendation

reply to markofmayhem

Agreed. A particular example is this whining:

quote:
It is already bad enough that nearly all computers sold come with Microsoft Windows pre-installed. In order to convince users to try free software, we must convince them to remove the operating system that came on their computers (or to divide their hard drives and make room for a new system, perceptually risking their data in the process).
As if that is anything to do with UEFI secure boot.

There *is* an intelligent debate to be had, particularly on the ARM issue, but there is apparently no intelligent life in the FSF.


No_Strings
Premium,MVM,Ex-Mod 2008-13
join:2001-11-22
The OC
kudos:6

1 recommendation

We have met the enemy, and he is us.



markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5

said by No_Strings:

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

My point as well...

And I agree with you dave See Profile, the ARM issue is distressing. x86 does give us complete control over the keys installed. ARM is a mess without Secure Boot, requiring a virus to infect ourselves to gain elevated priveledges. While Secure Boot will not stop "rooting", it will slow the time from device sale to root available with less popular devices possibly not getting a root ("jailbreak" for iOS folks) at all.

Secure Boot isn't unbreakable, it has been hacked already. The major difference is it hasn't been broken remotely or through a worm/trojan; but a user executed attack has successfully given control to the keys. ARM will not be unbreakable, but will be an extra hurdle to gain control: just as it is today with no honorable or justified reason to continue tomorrow, well, unless you are these folks:

Dell
HP
Verizon
Sprint
AT&T
T-Mobile....

Linux deserves a PLATFORM key, intradistro politics is eating us. Where is the FSF or LF? Why are they not stepping up with a PK and KeK system for us all to use?

Microsoft was convinced, through market preasure, to join the OSS Virtual Machine eco system. Through the same preasure, they can be preasured to join a global OPEN PK/KeK system (lock them out of the server space and see them agree to a board hosted solution). Secure Boot can be brought to its intended goal: KNOW WHO developed the execution of pre-OS files with trust employed by the user. Finger wagging when creative typing was needed will defeat to default and Microsoft didn't even have to put forth effort for this victory.... blah, oh well. Maybe next time? Probably not, it is easier to hate the straw man than bail the field.
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix

TuxRaiderPen

join:2009-09-19

said by markofmayhem:
Secure Boot isn't unbreakable, it has been hacked already. The major difference is it hasn't been broken remotely or through a worm/trojan;
So whats the point of having it other than competition lockout? None!

said by markofmayhem:
Linux deserves a PLATFORM key, intradistro politics is eating us. Where is the FSF or LF? Why are they not stepping up with a PK and KeK system for us all to use?
And who is going to run this?

FSF, LF? You will have factions who will not agree to either running this.

Third party? Who? ?

said by markofmayhem:
Microsoft was convinced, through market preasure, to join the OSS Virtual Machine eco system. Through the same preasure, they can be preasured to join a global OPEN PK/KeK system (lock them out of the server space and see them agree to a board hosted solution).
What is going to "pressure" OEM/ODM's to do such a lockout? Yeah Dell is going to not sell equipment that will not run "server 'OS'" from ms. Yeah right... The exact tactic will be you want to sell computers with this "OS" then you will sell hardware able to run "server 'OS'."

said by markofmayhem:
Secure Boot can be brought to its intended goal
I don't think that means what you think it does! The intended goal of "Secure" Boot is LOCKOUT Linux! Period. Any one, ANY ONE, ANY ONE! who believes otherwise is just fooling them selves...Yes, when the idea for it came about... it probably was for what its stated name is, but is been corrupted along the birth canal to its current mess. Need further proof? Look no further than crapple who has used it to do EXACTLY this LOCKDOWN OS X to its hardware, at least try to. Its NOT about security, its about LOCK OUT OF COMPETITION. If crapple thinks they have the !@(*$!(!*) be all end all bees knees OS, then COMPETE with it!

And....

If its insecure already.... whats the point, security wise? OK.... so its not remotely attackable, yet... but for 99.9999% of the situations that problem is for ONE particular line "OS" which is so infectable it could probably catch a cold from a human!

The BIOS needs replaced... the sky is falling... BS!

UEFI offers:

Better GUI for the BIOS.. SO? Big whoop! Not needed! Its a BIOS, its not meant to be user friendly! You don't need to be in there mucking with things if you don't know what they are!

GPT disk support... ok how many systems are using this? HANDS UP! UP HIGH! ! Still searching! This can be added to current BIOS architecture. You can't tell me Award etc. can not do this.

Scripting - REALLY! What nucklehead thinks this a good idea in a BIOS!

Fine we need to improve the BIOS to handle new technology ... fine... but some of this is just crap not needed, and like many other things solutions looking for problems. Scripting in a BIOS, talk about a !$(!*()$!() security hole big enough for a battleship... GEEZ!
--
1311393600 - Back to Black.....Black....Black....


FF4m3

@bhn.net

said by TuxRaiderPen:

The intended goal of "Secure" Boot is LOCKOUT Linux! Period. Any one, ANY ONE, ANY ONE! who believes otherwise is just fooling them selves...Yes, when the idea for it came about... it probably was for what its stated name is, but is been corrupted along the birth canal to its current mess.

+1

dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to TuxRaiderPen

FSF, LF? You will have factions who will not agree to either running this.

It's hardly Intel and Microsoft's fault that the open-source advocates can't stop squabbling like children. Or perhaps that should be 'like politicians', since they're apparently more interested in consolidating their positions than helping those whose interests they claim to have at heart.

TuxRaiderPen

join:2009-09-19

said by dave:
It's hardly Intel and Microsoft's fault that the open-source advocates can't stop squabbling like children. Or perhaps that should be 'like politicians', since they're apparently more interested in consolidating their positions than helping those whose interests they claim to have at heart.
I don't think any one with any stake in OS on equipment should be involved in this whole signing thing...

And absolutely not verisign they are more corrupt than the 2 players you mention, and the FSF and LF combined.

No I don't know who.....and no I don't need the "UN" involved in it or TubeGore. A respected, third party ... OK... time for more FlavorAde and meds, cause with that one I've obvisouly lost it.

BUT irregardless of who you get to be this "independent neutral third party" [glurp!] . . . what is going to FORCE/MANDATE/REQUIRE that "Linux KEY", "BSD KEY", "Solaris key", is going to be present? ? IN PLACE OR IN ADDITION to the lamer "OS" key? ANY OEM/ODM even thinking about including a key other than one particular "OS" key will be getting a visit from the ms thugs to 'splain it' how the new licensing works. The same old crap thats been going on for decades.
--
1311393600 - Back to Black.....Black....Black....


FF4m3

@bhn.net
reply to FF4m3

said by FF4m3 :

I've sent the FSF a link to the this thread.

Here's the response:

From: Jeanne Rasata via RT [info@fsf.org]
Sent: 07/04/12 12:06 PM
Subject: [gnu.org #764416] "Secure Boot" Whitepaper

Thank you very much for your feedback. We will look into it.
Thanks for supporting free software.
Sincerely,
j.

--
Jeanne Rasata
Program Assistant
Free Software Foundation


dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to TuxRaiderPen

I conclude you're against it because you are unable to solve the problem.

So, just turn off Secure Boot and you're done (at least on x86).

ANY OEM/ODM even thinking about including a key other than one particular "OS" key will be getting a visit from the ms thugs to 'splain it' how the new licensing works.

Oh, why didn't you say? You're a conspiracy nut.

So, just turn off Secure Boot and you're done (at least on x86).

TuxRaiderPen

join:2009-09-19

said by dave:
I conclude you're against it because you are unable to solve the problem.
Secure Boot at this time is really only needed for one "OS."

Its solves nothing really, security wise.

said by dave:
So, just turn off Secure Boot and you're done (at least on x86).
First I plan to.

said by TuxRaiderPen:

Any new hardware I get will be:

UEFI and Secure Boot - DISABLED
Legacy BIOS ENABLED
UEFI BIOS REPALCED with a NON UEFI and I will be actively sourcing motherboards with just that ability and BIOS(s).


If your reading comprehension had kicked in you would have read the above in a prior message.

said by dave:
Oh, why didn't you say? You're a conspiracy nut.
No. If you don't think ms is 'splain'ng' to OEM's on this, then YOUR the nut! Its about as bad if not worse than the whole payola in the record [music] business.

Any one who fails to get that xyz OEM is going to be heavily pressured and other tactics to be sure that NO KEY other than the "annointed and approved" key is in the BIOS.

said by dave:
So, just turn off Secure Boot and you're done (at least on x86).

Again, rereading prior post, will show:

said by TuxRaiderPen:

Any new hardware I get will be:

UEFI and Secure Boot - DISABLED
Legacy BIOS ENABLED
UEFI BIOS REPALCED with a NON UEFI and I will be actively sourcing motherboards with just that ability and BIOS(s).
Plain and simple bolied down, UEFI, is just more whippersnappers who got bored and could not just leave well enough alone and find something more constructive to do in with their coding.

Its a BASIC INPUT/OUTPUT SYSTEM, it is NOT a !@$!&*&$!*(&$!*(@& *! GUI system... and you don't need no !*()@&$!()@*$!()* mouse to change things in the BIOS!

Scripting in a BIOS? For WHAT?! ! Security hole wider than a battelship!

What you need is a BASIC system to display the settings and allow changes. NOTHING MORE. So it don't have cute little stupid icons, or mouse movements, or touch screen, or explain what any of this does... aaahhhh poor little idolts can't handle it... waaahhhhaaa.. be lucky you don't have to bootstrap your PC's to start them! Been there, done it! I would have zero issue with going back to it, and maybe even dig out the punch tape, cards, and TTY's!

Want to add GPT support or better support for larger HD's, or other things, fine! Doesn't mean we need this mess!

I will say it again... when it started, Secure Boot, probably had good intentions and merit... at this point it does not!

Your missing the ball and the game... its over here! ! ! Ignore the man behind the curtain! And your little dog too!
--
1311393600 - Back to Black.....Black....Black....