|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 01:17 AM EDT |
The 'channel' would be required as a minimum to release new firmware which would
then allow the equipment owner to switch off the signed boot loader requirement
in bios/uefi as releasing the signing keys is not the issue per sei and should
never be the issue (maybe the FSF should clarify if this is what they mean).
The real issue is whether a monopoly company like microsoft used it's influence
over the industry to define new rules of what can be loaded on hardware and in
the process made loading alternative operating systems much more complex,
thereby excluding these competing os's as a threat.
If microsoft provided a carrot and stick approach to the adoption of secure boot
and it's licensed OS, then it's clear to me they are abusing their monopoly
position.
Also if the secure boot process adds no real security to the system as a whole
but the general public is lead to believe it 'secure' and should never be
switched off, then this is also an abuse of their monopoly position as they
benefit by the reduced OSS competition.
Unfortunately the USA cares not about monopoly abuse as is evident from previous
DOJ actions. It's also pitiful that american citizens have to look towards the
EU for some corrective action with the hope that the DOJ will take notice and/or
the monopoly abuser will remove their abuse globally. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- =/ private keys - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 08:57 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 08:06 AM EDT |
If the BIOS allows me to add my own key to the BIOS, I can sign, install and run
my own software. All is good GPLv3-wise. They just have to make sure that I can
build an sign my own drivers.
Of course, they cannot mess us around by providing binary drivers that somehow
cannot be re-signed with our own private key.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
