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
News Pick Making UEFI Secure Boot Work With Open Platforms | 210 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
News Pick Making UEFI Secure Boot Work With Open Platforms
Authored by: kawabago on Saturday, July 07 2012 @ 09:00 PM EDT
Maybe a different scenario will play out. People will switch
to using phones (running Linux), tablets (running Linux) and
a server (running Linux) and using the tv (running Linux) for
big screen jobs. There won't be a desktop for Microsoft to
dominate.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

News Pick Making UEFI Secure Boot Work With Open Platforms
Authored by: dio gratia on Saturday, July 07 2012 @ 11:37 PM EDT

Microsoft's Windows 8 Hardware Certification Requirements, System.Fundamentals.Firmware.UEFISecureBoot, Item 2, applicable to Windows 8 (x86, x64), Windows RT (ARM) and Windows Server (2012, where using UEFI):

Mandatory. Secure Boot must ship enabled Configure UEFI Version 2.3.1 Errata B variables SecureBoot=1 and SetupMode=0 with a signature database (EFI_IMAGE_SECURITY_DATABASE) necessary to boot the machine securely pre- provisioned, and include a PK that is set and a valid KEK database. The system uses this database to verify that only trusted code (for example: trusted signed boot loader) is initialized, and that any unsigned image or an image that is signed by an unauthorized publisher does not execute. The contents of the signature database is determined by the OEM, based on the required native and third-party UEFI drivers, respective recovery needs, and the OS Boot Loader installed on the machine. The following Microsoft-provided EFI_CERT_X509 signature shall be included in the signature database: [Signatures deleted]
Bold emphasis in the original, italic bold emphasis added, two trailing notes not included.

The solution to allow support for alternative OS's under these constraints is for an OEM to include the ability to turn off secure boot and/or reset setupmode to '0' (False) or to include an EFI_CERT_X509 cert for an open source boot loader. The Platform Key (PK) would be set by the OEM.

Items 17, 18 and 19 make the distinction between ARM and non-ARM systems. Item 18 requires Secure Boot mode to be enabled or disabled via firmware setup, meaning to toggle between booting Windows 8 and booting an alternate OS would require firmware setup window interaction by a physically present user. Disabling Secure Boot is not possible on ARM systems.

Item 19:

If the firmware is reset to factory, then any customized Secure Boot variables are also factory reset. If the firmware settings are reset to factory defaults, all custom-set variables shall be erased and the OEM PKpub shall be re-established along with the original, manufacturer-provisioned signature databases.
This provision prevents you from restoring platform ownership to the physical owner of the product. You may not supply your own Platform Key. Item 13. requires the OEM to own the Public Key (PK). The firmware is never left in setupmode=1.

There's also a mandatory secure Firmware Update process in item 8 which prevents you from changing firmware to something more open source friendly with the caveat:

The firmware update process must also protect against rolling back to insecure versions, or non-production versions that may disable secure boot or include non- production keys. A physically present user may however override the rollback protection manually.
Which says the Platform Provider (the OEM) could provide you with the ability to load alternate firmware (potentially, non secure, but loaded securely).

The Gist of all this is either the OEM provides a platform configured for alternate OSes or provides a secure firmware update enabling non-secure firmware, you do things the Microsoft Way or you physically remove, reprogram or substitute and replace the firmware device(s) on a motherboard. You're dependent on the kindness of the OEM or the good graces of Microsoft. Of course, there is no Microsoft requirement that the firmware be physically incapable of being removed and replaced..., a socket or little daughtercard would do nicely.

In any event dual boot is dead without passing through a user interface to firmware.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

So Shutttleworth doesn't trust the FSF...
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 08 2012 @ 11:05 AM EDT
So Shuttleworth doesn't trust the FSF to keep their word that
they would not force him to release keys, but he is willing
to trust Microsoft and [slave-]partners to keep the setup
mode available to him for eternity????

Thanks for the straight line!

artp, still passwordless and memory-challenged

[ 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 )