|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 16 2012 @ 07:54 AM EDT |
I'm curious why you'd say that.
The OP seems to be asking strange questions, that aren't really relevent to
anything, but thet doesn't mean we shouldn't answer them, just that we shouldn't
fall into "When did you stop beating your wife" answers, which only
answer the direct question posed.
Of course, it probably isn't worth many people's time doing that without a
better-formed set of questions.
To answer the implied question: Is "Secure Boot" going to be effective
at what it was designed to do? That depends on how many manufacturers enable it
by default, and if it ever becomes an "always on" feature, as what it
is *designed* to do is hurt Linux adoption.
The claimed reason for it's existance is to make it harder to install certain
types of hiding payload, but once someone is at the point of installing things
on your machine (never mind your boot sections), you've already lost, so
Microsoft is trying to fix the wrong problem, *again*.
You've already lost, because the only truly safe way to handle a compromised
system is to wipe it and start over. This is also a good reason for *never*
including executable sections in data file formats.
I'll say that again, more clearly: "Secure Boot" is not designed to
protect against anything, it's set up to brick your system after you've been
attacked.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
