Microsoft taken to court because of UEFI

If you want to talk about your personal paperweight, you've found the right place!

Moderator: Moderators

Microsoft taken to court because of UEFI

Postby linuxfluesterer » Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:28

Halloy guys...
In morning I found this news: I haven't read it deeply, but there is a German article also:

http://www.linuxbsdos.com/2013/03/26/hispalinux-takes-microsoft-to-court-re-uefisecure-boot/

And here the German link from 'Heise'

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/ ... 30704.html

I really hope, that this will have success.

-Linuxfluesterer (I love KDE ...)
I really hope, that by the Brexit (poor Britain), TTIP will be finally prevented. But don't get tired to talk to your local politician to open eyes for danger to democracy because of TTIP
User avatar
linuxfluesterer
Old Dear Hen
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 19:47
Location: Germany

Re: Microsoft taken to court because of UEFI

Postby nachoig » Sat Mar 30, 2013 23:25

Hispalinux doesn't have any reason in this case. UEFI is well supported by upstream (GRUB2, Gummiboot and EFISTUB). Secure Boot can be disabled through UEFI setup.
nachoig
Simple Hen
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 20:19

Re: Microsoft taken to court because of UEFI

Postby linuxfluesterer » Sun Mar 31, 2013 10:08

Are you conscious of the fact, that when you boot with Windows 8 (and for that you must have enabled UEFI),
that MS is always able to change the 32MByte big program of UEFI and for next (re)boot every other OS could be excluded from being recognized or being able to boot? And it could happen, that UEFI may no more be deactivated!
MS can read your hardware, when you boot Windows, MS IS ABLE to manipulate UEFI program content of the computer also, and believe me, this threaten is real.
Have you followed the topic, that Samsung notebooks are broken, when use a special code in Linux and in Windows 8 also? UEFI is a big black hole, every user MUST trust MS, when they use Windows 8 and when you have a dual boot system on your laptop, then you can always corrupt your UEFI, when you have booted Windows 8.
So therefore, I have pulled out my new hdd with preinstalled Windows 8 (I haven't installed it!) and I put a totally new empty (ssd) hdd into my laptop with SL 11 64bit as the only system on it.
I hope, that I can prevent anyone (MS) changing my UEFI content with "security updates". I feel forced by MS with UEFI.
I am member of a Linux group. There are BIOS specialists, Linux and Windows experts. They described, how easy it is for MS to do that, what I told you here before.

This topic is very very serious. And why pay money for an UEFI licence? Someone must pay...

-Linuxfluesterer (I love KDE ...)
I really hope, that by the Brexit (poor Britain), TTIP will be finally prevented. But don't get tired to talk to your local politician to open eyes for danger to democracy because of TTIP
User avatar
linuxfluesterer
Old Dear Hen
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 19:47
Location: Germany

Re: Microsoft taken to court because of UEFI

Postby nachoig » Sun Mar 31, 2013 15:29

And what's your idea? Back to BIOS (cof cof)?

First: UEFI is not something like running on top of BIOS, it's a full replacement for BIOS. So, UEFI is a specificatoon and it isn't posible to deactivete it.

Second: UEFI is not a MS creation, it is developed by a consortium. You can see the members here
http://www.uefi.org/about/

Third: the Samsung's case. This an error in the implemantation of the UEFI's specification caused by Samsung. It's not a problem generated by Microsoft. See:
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/23554.html
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919485

Fourth: the possibility to deactivate Secure Boot in PCs is mandatory. Otherwise, the OEM couldn't receive the certificate of compatibility with Windows 8.

Fiveth: nobody doesn't pay for a UEFI license.

Sixth: stop to attack Secure Boot. The real problem is not this.
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/23817.html
nachoig
Simple Hen
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 20:19

Re: Microsoft taken to court because of UEFI

Postby linuxfluesterer » Sun Mar 31, 2013 18:49

Sorry, the real problem is UEFI. At first you can read the comment of Linus Torvalds here:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/02/linus-torvalds-i-will-not-change-linux-to-deep-throat-microsoft/
So, I will ask you really, where is any advantage then for Linux? And why does Torvalds attack UEFI? I know, before he said, UEFI is a good idea, but it is realized in a very bad way...
Second: of course someone must pay for UEFI Secure Key licence, at least Redhat will pay:
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/05/31/190217/red-hat-will-pay-microsoft-to-get-past-uefi-restrictions
And Canonical (Ubuntu) is going it's own way to licence it.
And here, you can see, that Verisign does the service for Microsoft to certify a Secure Boot key...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh801887.aspx
Verisign is the executing company for Microsoft only....
So, my suggestion: Why don't sell the computers without any bundled OS and Secure Boot key (UEFI) and tell the customers, if you want have Windows, you must pay the licence fee for Windows 8 and UEFI also.
And why let Linus Torvalds or the distributors don't let create their own secure boot key, created maybe in the moment, when the distribution is installed (like ssl)?
You can agree to UEFI, ok, but don't tell anybody it's a good thing for any other OS than Windows 8.
And the hack of Samsung UEFI shows, that it IS possible to write into UEFI code. This is a trap, opened to a curious OS like Windows has been it and is growing more and more to.
And pls, consider, MS is NOT the inventor of IBM PC, which our computers are still based on.
They don't have the right to decide for Non MS users to use a dangerous, hackable, much too big program with 32 MByte of code. This is the point.
Modern OS like Linux can handle hardware by themselves, so there is no really need for a new BIOS.
GPT already works, and would be only necessary for 2 Terabyte hdd BOOT partitions. I never saw such a hdd in a notebook and if they ever come, you can easily create a swap, a Root and a /home partition if you really need it.
Also all hardware drivers (graphic, bt, wlan) and so on a good OS will load after booting. Where's the problem?

-Linuxfluesterer (I love KDE ...)
I really hope, that by the Brexit (poor Britain), TTIP will be finally prevented. But don't get tired to talk to your local politician to open eyes for danger to democracy because of TTIP
User avatar
linuxfluesterer
Old Dear Hen
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 19:47
Location: Germany

Re: Microsoft taken to court because of UEFI

Postby nachoig » Sun Mar 31, 2013 23:37

linuxfluesterer wrote:Sorry, the real problem is UEFI. At first you can read the comment of Linus Torvalds here:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/02/linus-torvalds-i-will-not-change-linux-to-deep-throat-microsoft/
So, I will ask you really, where is any advantage then for Linux? And why does Torvalds attack UEFI? I know, before he said, UEFI is a good idea, but it is realized in a very bad way...



He's not bashing UEFI. UEFI and Secure are NOT the same thing.

The question in this article is about PE binaries, not UEFI.


linuxfluesterer wrote:Second: of course someone must pay for UEFI Secure Key licence, at least Redhat will pay:
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/05/31/190217/red-hat-will-pay-microsoft-to-get-past-uefi-restrictions
And Canonical (Ubuntu) is going it's own way to licence it.
And here, you can see, that Verisign does the service for Microsoft to certify a Secure Boot key...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh801887.aspx
Verisign is the executing company for Microsoft only....


Nobody needs to pay for a Secure Boot license for PCs, because Secure Boot can be disabled by UEFI setup.

linuxfluesterer wrote:So, my suggestion: Why don't sell the computers without any bundled OS and Secure Boot key (UEFI) and tell the customers, if you want have Windows, you must pay the licence fee for Windows 8 and UEFI also.


UEFI how an optional feature???? No, UEFI is implemented in the motherboard.


linuxfluesterer wrote:And why let Linus Torvalds or the distributors don't let create their own secure boot key, created maybe in the moment, when the distribution is installed (like ssl)?


http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html


linuxfluesterer wrote:You can agree to UEFI, ok, but don't tell anybody it's a good thing for any other OS than Windows 8.

UEFI is good for any operating system.

linuxfluesterer wrote:And the hack of Samsung UEFI shows, that it IS possible to write into UEFI code. This is a trap, opened to a curious OS like Windows has been it and is growing more and more to.


In the Samsung's laptop, the firmware wasn't touched. Read again please.
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/23554.html
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919485

linuxfluesterer wrote:3. Modern OS like Linux can handle hardware by themselves, so there is no really need for a new BIOS.


UEFI is not a new BIOS. BIOS is very old and ugly. It's very complicated to run a BIOS in modern hardware. We are talking about something that was created for PC AT. Hey, we are in 2013. Now we have Bulldozer, Core i7... I can't agree to use these type of hardware with something that runs in 16-bit mode, has insuffient space adreess, does a lot ugly hacks to solve the IRQ problems...

Also, GPT is an elegant solution. MBR ir very very limited. We don't need logical partition anymore and now we can use HDs with 2 TB or more.

UEFI is developd by a forum, the use of Secure Boot is not mandatory. People bashes UEFI not beacuse UEFI is bad, people bashes UEFI because they hate Microsoft and they need an extra reason to hate MS.
nachoig
Simple Hen
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 20:19

Re: Microsoft taken to court because of UEFI

Postby linuxfluesterer » Mon Apr 01, 2013 10:27

So, if we come to an agreement that UEFI may help the modern hardware to use it in a better way, then, I could follow you. But if we talk about the way to use Secure Boot, then I can not agree with you.
Because the hardware consortium may reject ANY key at any time, if they want to do it.
And MS has the power to force the hardware companies to do it. Alone this possibility is a threaten.
Btw, did anyone talk with Linus Torvalds to find a good solution in UEFI /Secure Boot? What I mean is, in the world there are more servers running with Linux than with Windows. It is due to UNIX reliability.
UEFI is implemented on motherboard, but it can be overwritten, the code can be changed, because it is no more ROM.
And I am sure, MS or maybe the hardware seller will make a 'Secure Update' whenever they think, it is necessary to do. Call it 'patch', call it 'features', whatever you like it...
In my case I am very content with my Core i5 combined with 8GByte Ram and ssd.
I switched off UEFI Boot, and I've got my fastest machine ever, well recognised hardware by linux. So, which benefit for me, for Linux to use Secure Boot? But in case I would boot any Windows 8 (with Secure Boot), there IS the danger, that MS will make a 'Secure Boot patch' and this could mean, I can't boot my Linux no more. This is the threaten.
Another thing is, how to make non knowing, but interested people, who would like to test a Linux distro, when they must learn how to handle UEFI deactivation (my SL KDE Daily Build from some days ago could not boot, when UEFI is activated)? Not many of them do know about this? It's too complicated and not it is not fair. Mandatory means, what MS wants to be mandatory.
The only real perspective I see for future is, that Android and Apple (iPad) will replace the market of computers with their tablets and that the customers won't need any Windows product any more. It is like always: MS is too late, sleeping (like in case with Netscape and the Internet Explorer) and now they try to prevent the customers using another product. But for me, I regret deeply, when I can't buy a new laptop in some years any more.

-Linuxfluesterer (I love KDE ...)
I really hope, that by the Brexit (poor Britain), TTIP will be finally prevented. But don't get tired to talk to your local politician to open eyes for danger to democracy because of TTIP
User avatar
linuxfluesterer
Old Dear Hen
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 19:47
Location: Germany

Re: Microsoft taken to court because of UEFI

Postby nachoig » Tue Apr 02, 2013 4:56

linuxfluesterer wrote:Because the hardware consortium may reject ANY key at any time, if they want to do it.
And MS has the power to force the hardware companies to do it. Alone this possibility is a threaten.


In theory, this a possibility but remember: Secure Boot can be disabled. Anyway, people in the Linux (Linux means the kernel) development don't care about this possibility.

linuxfluesterer wrote:Btw, did anyone talk with Linus Torvalds to find a good solution in UEFI /Secure Boot? What I mean is, in the world there are more servers running with Linux than with Windows. It is due to UNIX reliability.


Well, there is a MS key used by Linux Foundation, GRUB2, Gummiboot and EFISTUB. With EFISTUB the Linux generates a .efi image of Linux and of .efi image of initramfs in the boot partition, which is readed by the firmware.

linuxfluesterer wrote:UEFI is implemented on motherboard, but it can be overwritten, the code can be changed, because it is no more ROM.
And I am sure, MS or maybe the hardware seller will make a 'Secure Update' whenever they think, it is necessary to do. Call it 'patch', call it 'features', whatever you like it...


Impossible. Microsoft can't do that, because it requires changes in the firmware. Changes in the firmware are not trivial, because you have a lot of manufacturers and models with different firmwares.


linuxfluesterer wrote:In my case I am very content with my Core i5 combined with 8GByte Ram and ssd.
I switched off UEFI Boot, and I've got my fastest machine ever, well recognised hardware by linux. So, which benefit for me, for Linux to use Secure Boot? But in case I would boot any Windows 8 (with Secure Boot), there IS the danger, that MS will make a 'Secure Boot patch' and this could mean, I can't boot my Linux no more. This is the threaten.


Secure Boot in Linux has its advantages. You can avoid to load unsigned modules, for example. OK, nothing is perfect: it's necessary some method to solve the issues with third parties modules...

linuxfluesterer wrote:Another thing is, how to make non knowing, but interested people, who would like to test a Linux distro, when they must learn how to handle UEFI deactivation (my SL KDE Daily Build from some days ago could not boot, when UEFI is activated)? Not many of them do know about this? It's too complicated and not it is not fair. Mandatory means, what MS wants to be mandatory.



If you aren't able to enter in the setup (BIOS or UEFI), you aren't able to install any operating system.

And sorry, but if the distro in question doesn't support UEFI properly, it's the distro's fault.

linuxfluesterer wrote:The only real perspective I see for future is, that Android and Apple (iPad) will replace the market of computers with their tablets and that the customers won't need any Windows product any more. It is like always: MS is too late, sleeping (like in case with Netscape and the Internet Explorer) and now they try to prevent the customers using another product. But for me, I regret deeply, when I can't buy a new laptop in some years any more.


Generally Apple is more closed in these aspects than Microsoft. Try to install a GNU distro in iPad, for example...

With Android, it depends on the OEM. But now we have Google Nexus, and with Nexus is possible to run GNU distros like Ubuntu. There are demos with Plasma Active too.


linuxfluesterer wrote:-Linuxfluesterer (I love KDE ...)
[/quote]

Why do you put "I love KDE" in every posts?
nachoig
Simple Hen
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 20:19


Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest