Windows 8 Secure Boot Defeated 205
jhigh writes "An Austrian security researcher is scheduled to release the first 'bootkit' for Windows 8 at the upcoming MalCon in Mumbai. This exploit loads in the MBR and stays memory resident until Windows loads, resulting in root access to the system. This allegedly defeats the new secure boot features in Windows 8's bootloader."
Could open your system up to malware like Linux (Score:5, Funny)
But if the Windows bootloader integrity is compromised, we could all end up infected with Ubuntu, Debian, FreeBSD--god only knows what!
Won't someone PLEASE think of the children?!?!?
Re:Could open your system up to malware like Linux (Score:5, Funny)
That's what Edubuntu's for.
Re:Could open your system up to malware like Linux (Score:5, Informative)
Someone has thought of the kids!! http://maketecheasier.com/doudoulinux-a-fun-linux-distro-for-kids/2010/11/26 [maketecheasier.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
dou dou linux?
Naming a flavor of linux after shit?
Re:Could open your system up to malware like Linux (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it refers to a teddy bear [doudoulinux.org]. Kinda cute, with unfortunate implications to the American ear.
Re: (Score:3)
Some teddy bears [knowyourmeme.com] have even worse implications...
Re:Could open your system up to malware like Linux (Score:4, Informative)
Doudou is the French for comforter; a child favorite blanket, teddy bear or a scarf.
Like Wii (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Ano [ http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81no [wikipedia.org] ] is yes in Slovak, not just Italian for http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ano#Anatomia_umana [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Many of them are used to moderate and influence discussion in tech sites like Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
The kids are alright.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Einstein, please answer this then (Score:3)
Windows 8 does not *require* secure boot. Windows 8 does not *require* UEFI. The Windows 8 boot loader is *signed* so that it will support a system with secure boot.
How exactly was this about piracy when Windows 8 can be installed on hardware without UEFI, when Windows 8 can be booted without secure boot, when Windows 8 can be booted through an alternate boot loader?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps windows 8 doesn't require it, but windows 9 might have... if this is so ineffective that it has been broken before the first os that even supports it is released, maybe it'll get treated like the ridiculous garbage it is, and round-filed before it becomes an industry standard, and thus a potential security hole.
Re:Einstein, please answer this then (Score:4, Insightful)
Windows 8 does not require secure boot - but getting a "designed for Windows 8" sticker requires that the feature is present, and switched on, in your system as shipped.
The chilling effect that this will have on alternate operating system use (because it now requires more steps than just inserting a LiveCD / LiveUSB) is quite aside from the security implications of defeating the Windows 8 or UEFI bootloader though.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Does that mean the post should be moderated 'flamerbait'?
Sorry, I couldn't help it either.
Secure boot is UEFI (Score:5, Interesting)
Secure Boot is a UEFI feature, not Windows one. The article makes no reference to UEFI whatsoever - and it offers no explanation either for what mechanic was actually defeated. I do doubt the integrity of the article ARS is using.
Re:Secure boot is UEFI (Score:5, Funny)
>>I do doubt the integrity of the article ARS is using.
Are you suggesting that ARS was compromised?
Re:Secure boot is UEFI (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Secure boot is UEFI (Score:5, Interesting)
Secure Boot is a Windows feature building on a UEFI feature. If I'm understanding it correctly, every stage in the chain needs to be secure in order for the boot to actually be secure - a security flaw in either the UEFI firmware or the Windows code could render it ineffective.
Re:Secure boot is UEFI (Score:5, Funny)
a security flaw in either the UEFI firmware or the Windows code could render it ineffective.
Let's get real, what are the odds of a flaw in Windows code?
Re: (Score:3)
ISTR someone ran some numbers on Windows 95 some years back... in 15 million lines of code, there were (I forget the reported number) several hundred thousand coding errors which ranged from kernel bugs to showstoppers - odds of an error in precompile code actually worked out to about one "showstopper" error every thirteen lines. A lot of them had numbers atttributed to them (MSKB) with workarounds and/or downloadable and/or service packed (or in those days, "OEM service release") patches. For a while betwe
Re: (Score:2)
Somewhat. Windows 8 is the first OS from MS to support the UEFI secure boot feature. In that way it's much like the DMA for Blu-Ray, meaning all links in the chain must support it in order for the disc to be legally decrypted (in theory at least..lol).
I've found other references to this rootkit though and apparently the flaw is actually exposed in the legacy BIOS, not in UEFI, or Windows 8.
Re: (Score:3)
From what I've read, if there is a flaw in the UEFI firmware Windows will not boot.
Re:Secure boot is UEFI (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Secure boot is UEFI (Score:5, Interesting)
The funny thing is, this kind of thing is exactly the reason *for* Secure Boot (the non-conspiracy one, not the one that Slashdot is typically talking about). If you're using UEFI and you can verify a chain of trust, then you don't have boot sector malware. The fact that boot sector malware is possible on Win8 if you're NOT USING UEFI (because you're using an MBR) is not only obvious, it's the problem that Secure Boot is supposed to prevent.
I wonder, among the peoople who tagged this "irony", how many actually ahve the right of it. The only irony in the situation is that Slashdot is so rabidly opposed to the idea that a headline which is factually incorrect (blatantly obviously so) is posted because it is compatible with the popular bias, despite having no basis in the technology that we nerds supposedly understand.
That all said, there are certainly valid concerns about Secure Boot. It's entirely possible that they outweigh the value of making malware like this impossible. You should know what you're up against when you argue your case, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This of course means MSFT won't be able to force Windows 8 to be secure boot only as that would keep every AMD CPU from running Win 8
As noted by GGP, Win8 is not "secure boot only". It will boot on any hardware that boots Win7 today. Secure boot is only a requirement for that "Designed for Windows" sticker that OEMs slap onto their hardware.
By the way, there's nothing at your link saying that AMD is going with coreboot instead of UEFI. In fact, that specific story is posted under "embedded systems"... wonder why?
And I very much doubt it would be an antitrust issue. UEFI is an open specification, so everyone is free to implement it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And why is it people, even highly technical people don't have the right of it? Because Microsoft and friends persist in calling 2 very different things by the same name. To hear them tell it, "security" is both security against malware, and malware in the form of "security" against piracy of their products, also known as DRM. They spin it out of all recognition when they make the absurd claim that the DRM is for your own good, that it "protects" you from piracy. Yeah, just like the Mafia protects their
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't forget DRM: this way Microsoft can ensure that you can't install drivers or other software that can break the DRM system. Only a signed OS runs, only signed drivers run, eventually only signed applications from the Windows App Store run.
Re: (Score:2)
You are free to buy non-UEFI hardware, or the one on which Secure Boot can be disabled or have custom keys installed, and install Win8 on it (or use any existing hardware, for that matter).
Re: (Score:2)
Secure boot is a process. It starts with UEFI, but each link in the chain must maintain security. In this case, the Windows 8 bootloader is the weakest link.
No, in this case they got it completely wrong and 'defeated' the already vulnerable legacy BIOS/MBR - UEFI wasn't involved at all.
Horray! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but the heydays are over the next time you run Windows Update.
So...don't?
1) Install vulnerable Windows.
2) Install Linux, then delete all the bits of Windows not needed to boot Linux.
3) Run Windows in a VM, if at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's technically true, but what kind of machine is going to come with mandatory secure boot and not also come with a Windows license? Or, to put it a different way, if you're specifically buying a machine that doesn't come with a Windows license then you can easily just get one that doesn't come with secure boot.
The problem with secure boot is that it prevents people from converting older machines. You get a Windows machine, then later discover Linux and want to install it, and you can't because of secure
Windows or UEFI? (Score:5, Insightful)
UEFI doesn't have MBR (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:UEFI doesn't have MBR (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed - that's my first question.. looks like they "defeated" secure boot by not using it to start with.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus it looks like it needs physical access to the machine. If you have physical access you can boot it anyway you want. If this was a remote hack I would be more impressed.
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible but rather unlikely that a mainstream desktop system would be shipped in a way that didn't allow the owner to choose a different OS.
Why is that unlkely?
You buy a computer with Windows installed and the UEFI won't let it boot any other OS.
Why won't that happen?
What makes you think Microsoft won't offer better terms to companies who refuse to let other operating systems run on their hardware?
Why do you trust these people?
Re: (Score:2)
Why is that unlkely?
Because there's no reason to believe it would be done.
You buy a computer with Windows installed and the UEFI won't let it boot any other OS.
Why won't that happen?
Because there's no reason to, and because if MS were involved it would be a clear anti-trust issue, and for the same reason they haven't locked down BIOS features for all these years, they could have done this already but they didn't.
What makes you think Microsoft won't offer better terms to companies who refuse to let other operating systems run on their hardware?
Why do you trust these people?
Better terms to companies for what? And what companies? You think Microsoft is going to pay all manufacturers to lock out competitors and that this is going to be seen as legal in anti-trust law? Nice conspiracy theory, bit
Re: (Score:2)
Why is that unlikely?
Because there's no reason to believe it would be done.
Yeah, because Microsoft hasn't been caught threatening OEMs over selling non-Windows equipped PCs... oh, wait [kuro5hin.org].
What makes you think Microsoft won't offer better terms to companies who refuse to let other operating systems run on their hardware?
Why do you trust these people?
Better terms to companies for what? And what companies?
Better terms (or perhaps any terms) for OEMs who wish to sell PCs pre-installed with Windows.
You think Microsoft is going to pay all manufacturers to lock out competitors and that this is going to be seen as legal in anti-trust law?
Yes, Microsoft can, has, and will either pay manufacturers, or threaten and coerce them, to forbid any viable competition in the PC desktop OS market. They've done it before. It has been shown to work. The paltry fines they incur when they get caught indicate that it will continue to work, and the legal aspe
Re: (Score:2)
Because it could have been done (much easier, since Microsoft's influence over the hardware vendors was far greater) twenty years ago and wasn't.
Because it's an additional layer of complexity and support for hardware manufacturers and vendors, for little to no benefit.
Because it would fall afoul of the same antitrust law that got them into trouble with per-PC licensing of DOS & Windows in the '80s and '90s.
I trust hardware vendors to not go out of their
Re: (Score:2)
Because it could have been done (much easier, since Microsoft's influence over the hardware vendors was far greater) twenty years ago and wasn't.
Because it's an additional layer of complexity and support for hardware manufacturers and vendors, for little to no benefit.
Because it would fall afoul of the same antitrust law that got them into trouble with per-PC licensing of DOS & Windows in the '80s and '90s.
I trust hardware vendors to not go out of their way actively preventing sales of their product, for little to no benefit.
It was done in the past, and it is currently being done. Microsoft has gotten sneakier about not letting anyone in on their little secret, but Microsoft requires OEMs to install Windows as the only OS on any PC with Windows pre-installed. [kuro5hin.org]
The hardware vendors don't have an option, because not bending over for Microsoft would (as you put it) "actively prevent sales of their products". If they don't do what Microsoft says, then their license to sell Microsoft products goes away... and Microsoft still owns the
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think Microsoft won't offer better terms to companies who refuse to let other operating systems run on their hardware?
Because that would lead to an instant antitrust lawsuit, and the last one that happened in EU did not exactly go well (courts over there has this interesting approach towards feet-dragging, where they fine the company, say, a million euro per day until it complies - and then repeatedly double that rate if it still takes too long).
FYI, the total direct cost of EU browser anti-trust case for MS was $3B in fines in court fees. It's pretty big - big enough to show on the yearly report, and attract the negative
Re: (Score:2)
> What a load of shit, there is no conceivable reason they would not allow secureboot to be turned off in the bios,
> if they wanted to stop you from booting other OSes they could have locked down BIOS features decades ago, but they didn't.
Until someone decides to sell subsidized, ad-supported computers locked down to stop you from installing a different, non-adlocked OS, they slowly come to dominate the market (because normal users don't value an ad-free experience, or at least don't value being able
Re: (Score:2)
I hope that you're incorrect. Otherwise, the PC/tablet/slate will become just another consumer media device, like a TV. PC's as they are currently will be like HAM?
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft has been caught red-handed telling OEMs not to sell machines with operating systems other than Windows pre-installed. What in the world makes you think they would hesitate to require the OEMs to disable the ability to disable secureboot?
oh come off it (Score:2)
EUFI is not a PC-compatible BIOS, but it's still a "basic input output system" used to load the "real" OS. Sure, the proper word is firmware, but really I wouldn't be surprised if most people still call it the BIOS.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed - that's my first question.. looks like they "defeated" secure boot by not using it to start with.
The part you're missing is "... while making it appear to the OS as if secure boot is enabled and functioning as intended". This is still a defeat of secure boot, just in a roundabout fashion.
Re: (Score:2)
you could do that with a VM .. but it wouldn't be considered compromising secure boot for UEFI all they did was boon via MBR/BIOS and load a root kit that fooled the OS into thinking it was booted via UEFI and Secure boot.
Now if the OS was orginaly actual booting via UEFI + secure boot and they could do this without having physical access to the box THEN it would be a new story - but this is just someone changing a bios setting and writing a bootloader - whoopdydoo.
Re: (Score:2)
this is just someone changing a bios setting and writing a bootloader
.. that is only 14k, and can be loaded via a CD or USB storage device. While disabling password authentication.
Admittedly, the part where physical access to the box is required makes it a bit more difficult to implement, but the fact remains that this is (allegedly) a method of defeating Windows 8's SecureBoot - remote delivery mechanisms can come later. Early versions will require breaking and entering, or social engineering, but this is nothing new to the dedicated IT criminal.
Also, I never stated this ha
Re: (Score:2)
so when are Microsoft et. al. going to learn their lesson?
a strange game
the only winning move is not to play.
how about a nice game of chess?
Re: (Score:2)
Also, before you decid
Re: (Score:2)
Uhh UEFI literally has no MBR, it doesn't exist. So please explain to me how this exploit functions when the MBR doesn't exist? I think he is booting his drives in the wrong mode, which is to say legacy MBR mode instead of ADAPI/UEFI mode.
I'll explain it quite simply: It's not a UEFI exploit. The trick here is nothing to do with UEFI.
The trick is simply the ability to boot Windows 8 with SecureBoot enabled, and have it happily boot, thinking everything is hunky-dory, without actually having UEFI or its Secure Boot enabled (or even present).
Got it? This exploit fools the Windows 8 security feature called SecureBoot into thinking that it has booted from a secure boot chain, when in reality it not only hasn't done that, but is already rooted.
From the "What took so long?" Department.... (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, buttholes, it's MY COMPUTER. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm tired of these software vendors thinking that they own the rights to my hardware that I pay for.
Re: (Score:3)
I bet you had a shitfit about the TPM as well. Which happens to have three states, and I'll hilight the interesting ones for you:
1. Active
2. Inactive (just turns off)
3. Disabled (wipes keys)
Hell, and it's Dell letting you change this - hardly a company you'd expect to let you do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, and it's Dell letting you change this - hardly a company you'd expect to let you do so.
Why does this surprise you?
Dell isn't into customer S&M like Apple, they realise that it's _your_ computer not your _Apple_ computer.
Not broken (Score:5, Informative)
I thought the point to the UEFI secure boot thing was that the UEFI wouldn't boot without the MBR and remainder of the boot blocks being properly digitally signed.
Unless someone broke the digital signature system or found a flaw in the implementation, this sounds more like working as intended.
The article also seems to think that the boot loader is supposed to be encrypted for some silly reason.
Seems pretty clear that the article doesn't understand how it works, so its hard to imagine theres much truth in it. If you tell the UEFI to ignore digital signatures on the boot loader then yes, it has been compromised ... cause you turned it off. Intentionally turning it off doesn't count as breaking it guys, sorry.
If there was a claim of a flaw in the UEFI Secure boot implementation or design, then I'd listen, but the fact that its being called a windows exploit when it occurs before Windows has been started kinda sets off signal flares, ya know?
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the point to the UEFI secure boot thing was that the UEFI wouldn't boot without the MBR and remainder of the boot blocks being properly digitally signed.
More to the point is why are you using an MBR on a UEFI system?
Re: (Score:2)
The point is not that UEFI was broken - it wasn't.
The point is that SecureBoot can be fooled into thinking it's got a secure boot chain under it, when in actuality it doesn't. thus the headline "Windows 8 Secure Boot Defeated" - this MBR hack does a hand-wavy Jedi-mind-trick and tells Windows that everything is fine, and Windows believes it.
Austrian? (Score:3)
Austrian? Maybe they should call this one the UEFInator.
Hanz: Aww, you're such a little girlie boot record.
Franz: We're going to "boot" you up.
Back in the 1980's (Score:5, Interesting)
We saw all the tricks people employed to copy-protect games on the C64. Most of them were pretty weak. The most effective I recall were the methods which spread out their information gathering throughout the boot process. This prevented someone trying to break copy protection from easily identifying the part of code where the detection was executed. If Microsoft gathered information, throuhout the boot process it could easily assemble some sort of checksum to check the boot sector and identify if it wasn't genuine. Does it take more than 30 years to figure this sort of thing out?
Re: (Score:2)
That's just "security" through obscurity. It's just a matter of time before someone finds the code that checks the checksum and modifies it.
The whole issue is if untrusted code can load before the OS, you've already lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, nothing quite like booting up already rooted - which is what I believe this exploit does.
If I understand it properly, it allows the system to boot in an insecure way, then pulls a hand-wavy Jedi mind trick, telling Windows 8's SecureBoot that everything is fine, nothing's unsecure, all is well... the trick being that SecureBoot believes it.
Re: (Score:3)
The C64 loader known as Fastloader was an early usage of the LZH compression to bring more capacity to the tape system storage whilst reducing load times. Its true that certain security (null blocks in particular or "bad sectors") where used to validate security however these were often defeated as the primary loader needed (itself) to load into resident memory before going any further.
Per this discussion, i find it interesting again that the cat and mouse game is now afoot and it hardware level code signing is being used, its only a matter of time before some ingenious individual works or discovers the key.
Create a unique signature upon installation. Have validation gathering throughout boot-up and check. There's endless variations on this sort of scheme they could employ. Ultimately, if throughout the boot processes the OS identifies something is amiss it could lock the system down, affect repair, a number of things.
It's a cat and mouse game, alright, but one where the cat seems to be very slow thinking, clumsy to react and frequenly brained with an iron skillet.
Re: (Score:2)
Create a unique signature upon installation. Have validation gathering throughout boot-up and check. There's endless variations on this sort of scheme they could employ. Ultimately, if throughout the boot processes the OS identifies something is amiss it could lock the system down, affect repair, a number of things.
... and what happens when the boot sector needs to be updated, perhaps due to some previously-undetected security hole? Now MS Office doesn't work, because the user allowed Windows to update the security.
Alternatively, MS Office does work, because the security patch also updated the security check - and now there's a method for finding the security checker and disabling it, which prompts another security patch...
This "arms race" style of rights management is getting a bit out of hand.
DMCA (Score:2)
If this Austrian guy is coming to the US to talk about this, will he not be arrested immediately because of the DMCA? And is the DMCA the reason that hacks like this seem to always come from Europe? Or am I paranoid?
Re: (Score:2)
You're paranoid. The DMCA allows reverse engineering for research.
Wrong again (Score:2)
The six additional exceptions are as follows:
1. Nonprofit library, archive and educational institution exception
(section 1201(d)). The prohibition on the act of circumvention of
access control measures is subject to an exception that permits
nonprofit libraries, archives and educational institutions to circumvent
solely for the purpose of making a good faith determination as to
whether they wish to obtain authorized access to the work.
2. Reverse engineering (section 1201(f)). This exception permits
circumvention
Re: (Score:3)
Seems a little early to announce it (Score:3)
He probably should have waited until after W8 was released, now they have a chance to patch out all his hard work before anyone gets a chance to make use of it.
Re: (Score:2)
He probably should have waited until after W8 was released, now they have a chance to patch out all his hard work before anyone gets a chance to make use of it.
Microsoft is already aware of the contents of the entire paper, because he gave it to them.
Misleading title, Secure Boot not defeated (Score:5, Insightful)
Without a UEFI computer that is configured to boot only signed boot-loaders, this is not a valid test of the Secure Boot technology.
Basically, this is a case of "of course it works that way in this scenario, it's supposed to."
Re: (Score:2)
Without a UEFI computer that is configured to boot only signed boot-loaders, this is not a valid test of the Secure Boot technology.
... except that the Windows SecureBoot technology was tricked into thinking it was booting on a UEFI computer that was configured to boot only signed bootloaders. The headline is accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe since CmdrTaco left they are all trying to get fired or get people to leave or something.
Windows 8 Microsoft leveraging its dominance (Score:2)
This is nice but unless its seamless and user friendly to the point of invisibility Microsoft gets what it wants, a computing environment that is that much more unfriendly to anything not windows. In this case they are going so far as making it unfriendly to old versions of windows as well as other operating systems. I guess they don't want to see future failures to adopt like they had with Vista and ME.
Well MS better have the 7 start menu / gui enterpr (Score:2)
Well MS better have the 7 start menu / gui enterprise use and not the cell phone based UI How many people have touch screen laptops / desktops any ways?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is nice but unless its seamless and user friendly to the point of invisibility Microsoft gets what it wants, a computing environment that is that much more unfriendly to anything not windows.
How is it unfriendly to anything not Windows? They are just implementing the Secure Boot feature of UEFI, if you want to boot an OS that doesn't support it then turn Secure Boot off in the BIOS.
Re: (Score:2)
Duh, that was 'refuses to certify motherboards that do allow you to turn it off', obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
And when Microsoft refuses to 'Windows certify' motherboards that don't allow you to turn it off...?
Your conspiracy theory doesn't match with the certification guidelines that state that it has to support UEFI Secureboot, not make it a mandatory feature that cannot be turned off.
Re: (Score:2)
And when Microsoft refuses to 'Windows certify' motherboards that don't allow you to turn it off...?
Your conspiracy theory doesn't match with the certification guidelines that state that it has to support UEFI Secureboot, not make it a mandatory feature that cannot be turned off.
... this time.
WRONG (Score:3, Informative)
This headline is incorrect, secure boot was not compromised. From the ARS story:
The exploit allegedly defeats the security features of Windows 8's new Boot Loader. However, Kleissner said in a message exchange with Ars Technica that the exploit did not currently target the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI), but instead went after legacy BIOS. Kleissner said he has shared his research and paper and the paper he plans to present, "The Art of Bootkit Development," with Microsoft.
Secure boot does nothing if you have legacy BIOS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and all affordable replacements have secure boot that can't be turned of
Pretty big assumption you're making there.
Re: (Score:2)
It's academic if your motherboard dies as a result of normal wear and tear; by that time you'd likely find nothing on the market that conforms to the pin form of your processor. So, it's new processor, new RAM, new board (hence new chipset), fresh install - because transplanting Windows between even just different chipsets is an oft-painful experience. Been there, worn the t-shirt.
Lesson you shouldn't have to learn the hard way, so don't say you weren't warned: BACK UP! BACK UP! BACK UP!
Product differentiation (Score:2)
Seriously though why would any manufacturer do that?
Product differentiation. It's not that Microsoft would require motherboard manufacturers to disable secure boot. It's just that motherboard manufacturers would voluntarily hardcode Windows-only secure boot on their home-user-priced products and treat the ability to disable secure boot or to install one's own certificates as a niche feature suitable for a value-added upsell. Compare to the price difference between a retail game console and a debug console used by licensed developers.
Re: (Score:2)
As I have stated over and over again in this thread, this hack doesn't have anything to do with UEFI, and it's not supposed to.
The target is Windows 8's SecureBoot technology. This hack allows one to boot from an unsecured boot chain, while telling SecureBoot "everything is ok, we're happilly booting from UEFI with a secure boot chain" - and SecureBoot believes it.
Car analogy: You push the button on the remote to lock the car doors, watch the lights flash and hear the alarm system "beep" to indicate that th
The day I have to jailbreak my PC... (Score:2)
...to run software I WANT TO RUN ON IT is the day my Pentium Pro comes down out of the loft.
Damnit! (Score:2)
I gave it a month after release. I totally shouldn't have put $20 on it! Oh well. The odds were too good to pass up.
This is disgraceful (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously, hello, editors? Is anybody home? This post is 100% false. The very subject of this story has tweeted [twitter.com]:
No it's not attacking UEFI or secure boot, right now working with the legacy BIOS only (details will be in the paper)
Do the words "reckless disregard for the truth" have any meaning to you?
Re: (Score:3)
The information *you* are overlooking is that Windows is not tricked into thinking it booted from anywhere. Secure boot is not enforced nor checked by Windows. It is *supported* through its boot loader.
Secure Boot is *supported* by the Windows boot loader by virtue of being digitally signed. No checks from Windows itself.
It is the UEFI firmware which checks the signature of the boot loader. This ensures the integrity of the boot load'er before control is passed to it. The Windows boot load'er in turn checks
Re: (Score:2)