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
Nokia buyout by microsoft? | 210 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Android Spam --> loss of credibility for sophos
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 12:29 PM EDT
That is, Microsoft said it, Sophos believed them....

Remind me to take anything Sophos says with a truckload of salt.....and to try
to sell them a famous bridge in Brooklyn...
(Christenson)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Cisco backpedals after uproar, drops cloud from default router setting
Authored by: JamesK on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 01:23 PM EDT
I guess all of us not buying Linksys gear since yesterday did the trick. ;-)


---
The following program contains immature subject matter. Viewer discretion is
advised.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

the "yahoo" fudtrain rolls on
Authored by: designerfx on Friday, July 06 2012 @ 04:47 PM EDT
I'd like to explain something slightly technical. There's an
article at <a
href="http://securitywatch.pcmag.com/none/299970-uninstall-
yahoo-mail-app-for-android-warns-lookout">securitywatch</a>
that claims that this "android threat" is now confirmed
again by the security researchers. What is their "evidence"?
...<br><br> IP addresses. Yep, they're claiming that IP
addresses, which clearly have never been spoofed ever in the
history of mankind (sarcasm), are identifying that because
it's a mobile source it must be from android.<br> I don't
think there is a facepalm for what an insult to basic
technology knowledge this is.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Facebook to Target Ads Based on App Usage
Authored by: davecb on Saturday, July 07 2012 @ 10:26 AM EDT

PJ writes, about Facebook to Target Ads Based on App Usage This may be a new way to test IQs. If you are on Facebook after all this, how dumb are you?"

This may be a screening test for low IQ, just like the totally implausible emails from the finance minister of a small African country.

If you're stupid enough to believe anything on facebook, you're probably stupid enough to send an anonymous company your bank password.

--dave

---
davecb@spamcop.net

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Truely beautiful miniature engineering
Authored by: Kilz on Saturday, July 07 2012 @ 11:42 AM EDT
What an amazing video. The amount of time and skill to make
it is even more amazing. I am an amateur watchmaker and can
really relate to making very small parts and how hard it is
to get everything right.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Making UEFI Secure Boot
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 07 2012 @ 08:20 PM EDT
I notice the same pattern here as I do with all "do gooder" projects.
Something only gets done as long as it creates a dependency on the ones
providing the "solution". Never does a solution involve making the
one being helped strong and independent. That is there is never enough help for
the one being helped to stand on his own two feet.

Why wasn't UEFI secure boot created in such a way that the end user holds the
keys? We certainly demand the keys when we buy a house or a car. Here we have
systems that we do our banking with, pay our bills, consult with doctors and we
do not own the keys for these systems. Why? What do we have to do to educate
the public about the bear trap they are about to put their foot into? Snap!
Ahhhhh! There goes my foot. Why didn't I see that?

I don't see the gov getting involved until the situation gets bad enough to
require "regulation" which is what the politicians want. Then they
can tame that "wild Internet" once and for all which gets back to the
first point. What's in it for them?

Do not expect solutions that are in you interest from the vendors, the
politicians, or the courts. If nothing is done from the grass-roots then we
will completely loose control of the Internet.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

News Pick Making UEFI Secure Boot Work With Open Platforms
Authored by: dio gratia on Saturday, July 07 2012 @ 08:26 PM EDT

Making UEFI Secure Boot Work With Open Platforms | The Linux Foundation

Booting Closed Operating Systems
Obviously, a closed operating system could be booted identically to an open one above and still retain all its secure features, since security is guaranteed by control of the KEK which would remain in the hands of the operating system vendor. However, Steven Sinofsky has suggested in his blog posting “Protecting the pre-OS environment with UEFI”:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/09/22/protecting-the-pre-os-e nvironment-with-uefi.aspx

that the average platform owner might wish to give up control of the PK (and with it control of the signature database) to Microsoft and the OEM suppliers of the platform.

This mode of operation runs counter to the UEFI recommendation that the platform owner be the PK controller and would ensure that the Windows operating system would then become the only bootable operating system on the platform, but we must agree that it is a legitimate choice for an informed user to make voluntarily. It is enabled in our blueprint above by allowing the Microsoft OEM ignition system to install the OEM PK instead of generating a new PK specific to the installation. This can be achieved simply and securely because only the public half of the PK needs to be carried by the ignition system to effect this lockdown of the platform. Such a scheme is fully consonant with the current draft version of the Windows 8 UEFI logo requirements.

The ability of the platform owner to regain control should they desire it is guaranteed by the ability to securely reset the platform back to setup mode.

PK is the Platform Key, intended to be controlled by the Platform Owner as described on page 2. OEM stands for Original Equipment Manufacturer. The PK is needed to introduce new KEKs (Key Exchange Keys) allowing the platform owner to specify certification for booting software. The The UEFI specification (version 2.3.1) covering Secure Boot is 2,139 pages although section 27 on security is only 74 pages should anyone be interested. Note the blog software induced space in the msdn.com supplied long hand URL between the 'e' and 'n' in "environment" or see the original blog. Accessing UEFI Specifications requires registration and agreement to simple terms, preventing you from redistribution or running test cases without license.

From the Conclusion of the Linux Foundation document:

The UEFI secure boot facility is designed to be readily usable by both proprietary and open operating systems to improve the security of the bootstrap process. Some observers have expressed concerns that secure boot could be used to exclude open systems from the market, but, as we have shown above, there is no need for things to be that way. If vendors ship their systems in the setup mode and provide a means to add new KEKs to the firmware, those systems will fully support open operating systems while maintaining compliance with the Windows 8 logo requirements. The establishment of an independent certificate authority for the creation of KEKs would make interoperation easier, but is not necessary for these platforms to support open systems.
So the real danger is in Microsoft pressuring the OEMs into actually loading the Windows 8 operating system from it's presumed restore partition before delivery and/or otherwise not allowing the user to reset the platform to setup mode.

We can presume that Microsoft will do so for their own Surface tablets should they actually come to market in emulation of Apple's Walled Garden market binding of software and hardware closely together.

Steven Sinofsky's blog post (the URL above, Protecting the pre-OS environment with UEFI) gives the assurance "Microsoft does not mandate or control the settings on PC firmware that control or enable secured boot from any operating system other than Windows", which is a bit of a fainthearted assurance, but goes further:

Microsoft supports OEMs having the flexibility to decide who manages security certificates and how to allow customers to import and manage those certificates, and manage secure boot. We believe it is important to support this flexibility to the OEMs and to allow our customers to decide how they want to manage their systems.
So Microsoft isn't mandating who manages security certificates (through control of the Platform Key). It doesn't say they wouldn't offer better prices if the OEMs pre ceded control to Microsoft, nor does it require OEMs provide platforms capable of being controlled by the purchaser. 'Customers' could mean either end users or OEMs. You could contemplate the presence or lack of enmity following Microsoft's announcement of production of their own platforms and how their OEMs were notified, as well as the prevalence of say Linux, Chrome or BSD as an alternative to Windows in the marketplace. It isn't likely today that a PC platform manufacturer would preclude other operating systems by intent barring economic advantage.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Monsanto & "Isolated DNA" Patents
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 07 2012 @ 09:53 PM EDT
Although I wish the courts would find DNA patents invalid, I somehow doubt they
will. In the alternative, I wish they would limit patents on "isolated
DNA" to exactly that and find no infringement when that DNA spread to other
crops without anyone actually isolating the DNA in question.

Of course, they'd probably just change the wording of the patents, but hopefully
the courts would be able to find other problems with such approaches.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

lukewarm reception for Windows 8
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 03:07 AM EDT
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9228896/Windows_8_falls_further_behind_Wi
ndows_7_in_pre_launch_stats

"Users remain significantly less enthused about Windows 8 than they were
three years ago about the then-unfinished Windows 7, according to data from an
analytics firm. The new numbers from California-based Net Applications hint at a
lukewarm reception for Windows 8.

Just 0.18% of all the computers that went online during June ran one of the
previews of Windows 8, statistics Net Applications showed last week. Of those
PCs running Windows, 0.2% -- or 20 out of 10,000 -- were powered by Windows 8.

As in April, when Computerworld last used Net Applications' data to analyze
Windows 8 uptake, the new OS' June numbers were dramatically lower than Windows
7's at the same point in its development."

So, is Windows 8 just a bucket full of lukewarm spit?



---
______
IMANAL


.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Nokia buyout by microsoft?
Authored by: designerfx on Monday, July 09 2012 @ 09:40 AM EDT
Hrm, it's almost like we have precedence of Microsoft doing
this! We must act surprised!

So....a month? a year? It's not like this is well documented
or anything.

[ 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 )