decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
UEFI and Secure Boot - less Freedom is No Freedom | 305 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
UEFI and Secure Boot - less Freedom is No Freedom
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 07:21 AM EDT

Eventually we only run what is safe for us...

Whattayamean, "eventually"?

smartin@cerberus ~ $ uname -a
Linux cerberus
2.6.38-8-generic #42-Ubuntu SMP Mon Apr 11 03:31:50 UTC 2011 i686 i686 i386
GNU/Linux

---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

UEFI and Secure Boot - less Freedom is No Freedom
Authored by: marcosdumay on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 04:31 PM EDT
That's exactly the problem. Once anybody can get a bootoader signed, the (tiny
little amount of) added security is lost. That's what Canonical is making
crystal clear with their bootloader.

The entire idea is wrong, as it only leads to anticompetitive practices, not to
any actual security. If security was the goal, MS would sign their executables
(and only those) and publish their public key; computers with secure boot
available would have it disabled, with the option for the USER to enable it with
any key he chooses.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )