First computers that cannot boot anything but Microsoft Windows due?

[Prometheus]

I just stumbled across this piece about how Microsoft will be requiring hardware partners for its ARM version of Windows 8 to lock down the systems seemingly to prevent the installation of other OSes.


A quote from the article;

At the beginning of December, we warned the Copyright Office that operating system vendors would use UEFI secure boot anticompetitively, by colluding with hardware partners to exclude alternative operating systems. As Glyn Moody points out, Microsoft has wasted no time in revising its Windows Hardware Certification Requirements to effectively ban most alternative operating systems on ARM-based devices that ship with Windows 8.


The Certification Requirements define (on page 116) a "custom" secure boot mode, in which a physically present user can add signatures for alternative operating systems to the system's signature database, allowing the system to boot those operating systems. But for ARM devices, Custom Mode is prohibited: "On an ARM system, it is forbidden to enable Custom Mode. Only Standard Mode may be enable." [sic] Nor will users have the choice to simply disable secure boot, as they will on non-ARM systems: "Disabling Secure [boot] MUST NOT be possible on ARM systems." [sic] Between these two requirements, any ARM device that ships with Windows 8 will never run another operating system, unless it is signed with a preloaded key or a security exploit is found that enables users to circumvent secure boot.

There's a bit more stuff, and some links, in the full article.


I must admit to not being surprised by this in the slightest (sorry guys, I'm just not). The question on my mind is, if it really does turn out this way, will anyone bother to stand against it, or will they just continue accepting "rooting" and cracking devices as some sort of fact of life and simply apply this thinking to their computers as well?

 

[mcobit]

This is a very sad developement. I saw that coming, too and I hope, that people will notice, what Microsoft is trying to do there and won't buy this hardware.

 

[slaeshjag]

I wonder how long it will take before DBD sends out another newsletter :rolleyes:

 

[Prometheus]

Am I the only one who feels that Defective By Design keeps undermining themselves with their frequent lack of research and silly sensationalism? (Their idiocy over something they imagined about the Nintendo 3DS was one of several things that put me off of them.)


EDIT: Something semi-related is here. It's a piece about a proposal for a DMCA exception in the US, which could help to nip this nonsense in the bud.

 

[Coldbird]

One of the reasons I never buy unhackable devices for myself...


Manufacturers that have to rely on such tricks to lock their users into their shitty systems are ment to be avoided altogether.


Sent from my NookColor using Tapatalk

 

[Caine]

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with secure boot by itself. In fact, it is a good idea which can add another layer of extra protection. However, it is vital that the user can---by flipping a hardware switch---add additional signatures for other software.


Unfortunately, as can be heard in the war on general computation, there are plenty of parties which will try to abuse such developments for their own selfish agenda. It does not come as a surprise that Microsoft is one of the first to attempt such abuse. I hope that Europe will apply its political power to suppress these developments but at the same time I'm skeptical about the technical knowledge of our politicians and the laws they craft.


As consumers, it is our obligation to fight for our freedoms through our wallet. If there ever was a time where it was important to support open platforms, both hardware and software, then that time is now.

 

[WizardStan]

I recall a dispute in Germany that resulted in the decision that users have the right to install alternate software on systems they own and it is not an offense to crack through security in order to do it. Looks like that's what the DMCA exception is trying to allow.


Unfortunately, neither of these things has an effect on what Microsoft is trying to do: while they grant the user the right to change the software, it doesn't say the company has to facilitate that change in any way. The secure boot can still go in, just that Microsoft wouldn't be able to take anyone to court for figuring out how to bypass the secure boot.

 

[Prometheus]

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with secure boot by itself. In fact, it is a good idea which can add another layer of extra protection. However, it is vital that the user can---by flipping a hardware switch---add additional signatures for other software.

Exactly. That's the problem - it's a potentially good idea, that's seemingly being undermined by greed and bad practices.

As consumers, it is our obligation to fight for our freedoms through our wallet. If there ever was a time where it was important to support open platforms, both hardware and software, then that time is now.

Yep! I've got my money on-hand for buying and donating at least a couple of Raspberry Pis, in the near-term, and hope to be able to learn some stuff (it's a necessity for advancing my sewing, believe it or not I want to learn to drive servos so that I can prototype animated plush), and contribute a bit more both here and there. Hopefully there'll continue to be more such chances in the longer term.

 

[Binky]

Surely the law we need is:


User has right to run own software --> Attempting stop them doing so is a crime --> People with authority who can correctly identify such attempts --> major penalties for people who attempt to stop custom software use.


We are currently on stage 1

 

[Blue Protoman]

Someone's gonna crack it anyway. (Unless Exophase decides to chime in.)

 

[craigix]

They have failed with ARM, just look at their feeble attempts to move in to the phone market. What did they get? <0.5% market share?


People put up with Windows when there was no real alterative, now they have Android/iOS they won't be rushing back.

 

[SNESFAN]

not going on a tangent about android being since it's linux based the kernel source needs to be made available and is a good starting ground for any hardware hacker to find exploits to get arounda "secure" bootloader and also a good starting ground for putting alternate OS's on the device.


microsoft has no such requriement so I see hacking a windows 8 arm machine to be similar to trying to loading an alternate OS on an Xbox or something like that... how many winmo phones do you see running anything other than winmo (excluding devices that run the same chipset etc as andoird phones)

 

[Phelsumania]

first thing i did with my windows phone was remove windows the only logical thing to do.

 

[Binky]

^ So you now have a nice Nokia smartphone! Does it run Meamo or its descendant(s)?

 

[sebt3]

how many winmo phones do you see running anything other than winmo (excluding devices that run the same chipset etc as andoird phones)

Do you know the history behind angstrom ? sound like you dont.


Most winMo device up to 6.1 have been hacked and a linux distribution was loaded with either opie environement or gpe. (I stopped following that at this point, anyway I was a palm user...)

 

[SNESFAN]

yea you got me, had only one winmo device a htc mogul... hated it and never saw any devleopment on that platform... looked int others didn't find any there either


guess my knowlege of winmo devices is pretty dated, so retracted comment

 

[milkshake]

I use a windows phone device (not winmo) and im not ashamed to like it.

 

[gadgetoid]

Easy solution; don't buy these computers. Why would you, anyway!?


For everything else, this kind of thing is ideal. Obviously Microsoft have failed to produce software that isn't comprised entirely of gaping security holes, so let them rely on hardware to make up for their inadequacies. The average Joe consumer will be the better for it.

 

[Prometheus]

Easy solution; don't buy these computers. Why would you, anyway!?

I wouldn't, myself, but the whole thing would set a horrible precedent, and going on history, the concern is that these tactics would be used to bully these so-called "partner" manufacturers out of even offering anything else as an option (See: Netbooks).

For everything else, this kind of thing is ideal. Obviously Microsoft have failed to produce software that isn't comprised entirely of gaping security holes, so let them rely on hardware to make up for their inadequacies. The average Joe consumer will be the better for it.

Good point. That said, if the hardware's only really useful for restricting the boot process, I'm not too sure how it'll help them. :lol:

 

[WizardStan]

Easy solution; don't buy these computers. Why would you, anyway!?

You and I are unlikely to buy such hardware, however I suspect that the people that care about such things are in the vanishing minority. Microsoft will still sell them by the boat load to the mass market that simply doesn't understand or care and will call it a success because that's what it will be, despite the niche group that they've bypassed.