Microsft is Target of Hispalinux over EUFI

[mJayk]

Its easy to blaime microsoft, its hard to blaime the fools who buy the products and then complain.

Only one wouldn't exist without the other.

[Elfy]

So - does anyone think they stand any chance?

Regardless of any perceived blame ...

Please - only real answers, not what we might like to happen ones.

[monkeybrain2012]

Its easy to blaime microsoft, its hard to blaime the fools who buy the products and then complain.

Only one wouldn't exist without the other.

Since when did consumer's rights become dependent on the intelligence of the consumer? By that logic no vendor should be held accountable for dubious products or scams because in your parallel universe it would be entirely the consumer's responsibility to research before buying.

[oldfred]

From what I have seen here in the way of results of dual booting UEFI with Windows 8, it is not Microsoft's official standard that is the problem. Whether Microsoft told vendors in undocumented ways to modify UEFI we will never know. Unless there are documents somewhere that Microsoft told vendors to implement in ways not officially published I do not think they can win.

Some vendor or some models of those Vendors dual boot easily with secure boot on or off.
Some computers boot only with secure boot on, but if grub2's shim file and correct kernels are used it dual boots.
Some computers only boot the Windows efi file. You can rename the Windows efi file and rename shim to the Windows file name and it will dual boot with secure boot on. (Boot-Repair automates renaming.) The changing of UEFI to only boot Windows efi file is against the UEFI specification.

Some will only install in CSM/Legacy/BIOS mode, but you can convert to UEFI mode by uninstalling grub-pc and installing grub-efi. Again Boot-Repair can automate it.

And all the UltraBook systems add extra install issues, due to Intel using RAID as part of its Windows caching, and nVidia not supporting Optimus, although many have bumblebee working.

From the Ubuntu BIOS/UEFI Requirements.pdf but it seems many system only boot
/EFI/Microsoft/Boot/bootmgfw.efi.
http://hwe.ubuntu.com/docs/ubuntu-bi...quirements.pdf

Firmware should not enforce any boot policy other than the mechanism specified in Section 3 of the
UEFI 2.3.1 specification [UEFI 2.3.1]. Specifically, firmware should not modify boot behaviour de-
pending on the Description field of the EFI_LOAD_OPTION descriptor.

[buddyboy8]

Spanish Linux users launch legal challenge to Microsoft’s secure boot

http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com...s-secure-boot/

27 March 2013

"Hispalinux, a Spanish association representing Linux users and developers, has filed an EU complaint against Windows 8’s UEFI Secure Boot, calling it “a de facto technological jail for computer booting systems.”

The problem is that it is difficult to buy a mainstream computer that does not already have Windows 8 installed – but once installed, the secure boot mechanism makes it difficult if not impossible to install an alternative operating system such as Linux.

The problem and issues are most easily understood by analogy with Apple’s iOS. This, along with other mobile devices other than Android, operates a secure boot mechanism; that is, once purchased, only the installed operating system will work. This makes the device attractive to business because of the increased security it provides; but makes it less attractive to those individuals who want to use the device in a manner not allowed by the operating system. Secure boot is effectively what lies behind the jailbreaking movement for iOS – the Spanish Linux users effectively want to jailbreak Windows 8 so that they can add Linux to the device.

It is both a challenge to the rights of ownership, and “is absolutely anti-competitive," lawyer and Hispalinux head Jose Maria Lancho told Reuters. "It's really bad for the user and for the European software industry."

At start-up, the secure boot mechanism uses keys registered in firmware to confirm that the operating system’s bootloader and kernel have not been altered. “The idea is to avoid situations where malware modifies the operating system or boot process itself as part of its camouflage mechanisms,” explains Heise Online. “Microsoft requires that machines sold with Windows 8 pre-installed are configured to use this mechanism to validate the operating system.” But since the majority of PCs are sold with Windows already installed, those computers are basically forever tied to Windows.

Microsoft spokesman Robin Koch does not believe that this is anti-competitive. "We are happy to answer any additional questions but we are confident our approach complies with the law and helps keep customers safe,” he told Reuters.

For now, the official European Commission view seems to support this. In a written answer to a parliamentary question on March 4 this year EU Competition Chief Joaquin Almunia said, “The Commission is monitoring the implementation of the Microsoft Windows 8 security requirements. The Commission is however currently not in possession of evidence suggesting that the Windows 8 security requirements would result in practices in violation of EU competition rules as laid down in Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In particular, on the basis of the information currently available to the Commission it appears that the OEMs are required to give end users the option to disable the UEFI secure boot.”

It now remains to be seen whether Hispalinux can change his opinion."

http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com...-notes-charney
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...92P0E120130326
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/it...t-1830714.html
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/...62&language=EN
http://www.hispalinux.es/node/758

All rights reserved. Copyright © 2013
=======================================
Related News Elsewhere:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51329950/n...nst-microsoft/
http://newyork.newsday.com/business/...o-eu-1.4909950
http://www.mobilenapps.com/articles/...ot-windows.htm
http://rcpmag.com/articles/2013/04/0...cure-boot.aspx
http://www.eitb.com/en/news/technolo...int-microsoft/

and others...

[mJayk]

Since when did consumer's rights become dependent on the intelligence of the consumer? By that logic no vendor should be held accountable for dubious products or scams because in your parallel universe it would be entirely the consumer's responsibility to research before buying.

Since pretty much forever, being offered an alternative is not a consumer right. Markets are consumer driven. Its quite simple, very actually.

[mörgæs]

It is indeed a consumer right. That's why we have anti-trust legislation.

[mJayk]

Offering an alternative is not anti-trust legislation. It has nothing do with it, giving false information to or forcing a customer to choose your product or indeed bullying another company out is.

On a side note I cant see the DELL website selling HP laptops maybe we should sue them?

[buzzingrobot]

First, I believe there already is an EU ruling that Secure Boot, i.e., this specific implementation, does not violate EU law. It will be interesting, then, to see how this Spanish effort plays out.

Second, whatever happens to this challenge will not impact the dominance of Windows in the desktop marketplace. That is the real issue here. Hardware vendors have every reason to build hardware that can run Windows, even if that makes it difficult to run other operating systems. It's a business with razor-thin profit margins. Vendors feel, with reason, that they will lose money if they divert some percentage of their production into making hardware without Secure Boot just on the prospect that some Linux users will buy it.

Whether or not Microsoft actaully secretly ordered manufacturers to do X or Y is not really relevant, or necessary. Microsoft has every right to market software that expects to find certain capabilities in the hardware it runs on. All software does. Merely announcing that Windows won't run on hardware that does not implement secure boot (lower case) in a specific manner is enough reason for every hardware vendor to fall in line. If they did not, they would go out of business.

That's the real-world state of affairs. A lot of us don't like it. But, just wishing it wasn't so is just wishful thinking.

Meanwhile, the idea of protecting against boot-time attacks is valid and reasonable, and one that Linux should not blithely brush off. Perhaps if Linux had been first to the table with a less onerous implementation of secure boot, none of this would have happened. As it stands, an institution like the EFF or the Linux Foundation, or even the FSF, could step forward and act as a key registrar for the Linux community, in lieu of Microsoft. No one seems to be willing to do that, unfortunately.

[monkeybrain2012]

Offering an alternative is not anti-trust legislation. It has nothing do with it, giving false information to or forcing a customer to choose your product or indeed bullying another company out is.

On a side note I cant see the DELL website selling HP laptops maybe we should sue them?

How is locking the hardware to Windows offering an alternative?