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
Agreed: I also choose no UEFI | 162 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Somewhat disappointed about your UEFI statement.
Authored by: PJ on Monday, July 08 2013 @ 07:11 PM EDT
That's a good point. But if someone
wants to point me to a how to, or
write me one, to show me how to
make it work, I'll give it a try.

Fedora would be my first choice,
so if you could do it for that,
I'd be happy.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Somewhat disappointed about your UEFI statement.
Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, July 09 2013 @ 06:07 AM EDT
The whole POINT of UEFI is to give a trusted boot sequence, so you can know the
system hasn't been compromised.

The initial ROM pre-loader checks the boot PROM, the PROM checks the
boot-loader, the boot-loader checks the kernel, etc etc etc.

I know - there are bugs ...

And yes, I do understand MS has rigged the system such that the first boot of a
new PC pretty much HAS to be into a working Windows (so you have to accept the
EULA) before you can gain access to the UEFI to tell it you want to wipe Windows
and install linux over it ...

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Agreed: I also choose no UEFI
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 09 2013 @ 12:00 PM EDT

The questions below are not meant for the poster I responded to - but to anyone that thinks UEFI has positive aspects.

I'd rather have an OS with proper security from the ground up then a makeshift bandaid that pretends to add security. My humble opinion as to what UEFI "offers".

If the source I select for my Linux Kernel is compromised, and I sign it with a UEFI key:

    How does UEFI protect me from said malicious code being started up when said malicious code is signed?
If the source I select is not compromised and I only ever modify the system applications with the Root user - or equivalent - and I only ever work in "peon user" mode otherwise:
    In what way would I even need UEFI?
The single point of security failure that has always existed for the computer is physical access.

If I have physical access to the computer:

    Can I get around UEFI via a manual method - for example using the old fashioned "short the bios battery" to reset the bios to factory settings so I can enter it and configure it as I want?
If there is such a work around:
    What value does UEFI provide that I can't get through other security mechanisms?
I own the device! I have total say in what goes on it! If there is no work around and UEFI can lock me out of my own system:
    It's not security I want!

RAS

[ 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 )