- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Android/Linux Not a Security Concern, Windows Definitely and Demonstrably Remains #1 Target
|
|
|
Comments (28)
8 earlier comments in the full thread.
Quoting:Win 7 already does that.
And no lawsuits were initiated, which proves my point and your point above is hollow.
Quoting:Ugh, this has already been disproven my multiple vendors.
What was disproven? which vendors? where are your links?
Here is my link, you can find many others to convince yourself
Quoting:UEFI secure booting (part 2) by: Matthew Garrett
- Windows 8 certification requires that hardware ship with UEFI secure boot enabled.
- Windows 8 certification does not require that the user be able to disable UEFI secure boot, and we've already been informed by hardware vendors that some hardware will not have this option.
- Windows 8 certification does not require that the system ship with any keys other than Microsoft's.
- A system that ships with UEFI secure boot enabled and only includes Microsoft's signing keys will only securely boot Microsoft operating systems.
Quoting:In case you weren't aware, RedHat and Canonical are already members of the committee that is working on UEFI (I discovered this after one of my early criticisms).
I am aware of that and I don't dispute their support. Actually, UEFI is pretty good protocol and should be supported with one condition that users should be in control of UEFI on their machines, not vendors and certainly not Microsoft.
Quoting:And no lawsuits were initiated, which proves my point and your point above is hollow.
Except what you said and what I initially said are two different things. The original comment concerned installing AV by default. Try re-reading it from the beginning and perhaps you'll understand it.
Quoting:What was disproven? which vendors? where are your links?
http://www.osnews.com/story/25293/Dell_HP_Respond_to_Secure_... http://ostatic.com/blog/uefi-wont-trouble-linux-users-much http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/leading-pc-makers-confirm-no-...
http://www.osnews.com/story/25293/Dell_HP_Respond_to_Secure_...
All coming from "The Ed Bott Report on ZDNet". Give me a break, they are your companions. You better have more credible reporters to cite. Otherwise your arguments are all bunk and next time choose better sources to back them up.
I hardly find any of the following assuring
All coming from "The Ed Bott Report on ZDNet". Give me a break, they are your companions. You better have more credible reporters to cite. Otherwise your arguments are all bunk and next time choose better sources to back them up.
I hardly find any of the following assuring
Quoting: 'having plans' is of course far from a definitive promise
HP, sadly, was less clear.
None of this is the reassuring words Bott makes them out to be. There are no promises, no assurances, nothing.
All in all, this issue is far from over, and what Bott has presented us with so far is by no means the smoking gun. Considering Microsoft's history of anti-competitive practices, its current patent troll behaviour, and the general incompetence of OEMs, it's entirely reasonable and smart for us geeks to be on our toes.
@fettoosh
I don't know who Bott is or why you would consider him my companion but personal attacks from someone that provides zero value to the open source community really don't hurt my feelings.
Sorry, bro.
Here are a few more links providing guidance to vendors, feel free to pretend the sky is still falling though. :D
http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/linux-foundation-says-uefi...
http://ozlabs.org/docs/uefi-secure-boot-impact-on-linux.pdf
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/sites/main/files/lf_uefi_sec...
You do know what happens to the boy who constantly cried wolf, don't you? When the wolf really came, no one listened.
What do I know though, I've just been reading about the sky falling since 1995 when I first installed Linux on my desktop.
Quoting: Give me a break, they are your companions
I don't know who Bott is or why you would consider him my companion but personal attacks from someone that provides zero value to the open source community really don't hurt my feelings.
Sorry, bro.
Here are a few more links providing guidance to vendors, feel free to pretend the sky is still falling though. :D
http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/linux-foundation-says-uefi...
http://ozlabs.org/docs/uefi-secure-boot-impact-on-linux.pdf
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/sites/main/files/lf_uefi_sec...
You do know what happens to the boy who constantly cried wolf, don't you? When the wolf really came, no one listened.
What do I know though, I've just been reading about the sky falling since 1995 when I first installed Linux on my desktop.
Quoting:Here are a few more links providing guidance to vendors, feel free to pretend the sky is still falling though. :D
You keep dancing around the real issue.
Your are not telling me something that I don't know. I already said I have no problem with UEFI.
The issue is with its implementation by the OEMs who are bowing to MS pressure.
The sky is falling is in your imagination, and I said nothing to imply it. I actually dare MS & OEM to go through with their plans. Users who already have applications that are not signed are going to be very unhappy when they can't install them. That is going to cause a major uproar and will backfire at MS. I would like to see how MS is going to get around that.
In terms of implementation, I am sure there are OEMs other than HP , Dell, etc. who are going to have open implementation of UEFI. I have no reason to be concerned.
By the way, companions as MS shills.
Quoting:The issue is with its implementation by the OEMs who are bowing to MS pressure.
Show me one instance of Windows only hardware based on UEFI. Just one.
Quoting:By the way, companions as MS shills.
I can assure you that I have no relationship with Microsoft, nor do I care too. I do have a long history with the open source community, the majority of which is indexed by google. While I find your accusation of being an MS shill extremely entertaining, it is unfortunately for you baseless and factually untrue.
An entertaining example of a contribution from Feb 2003.
Sorry, bro.
Quoting:Show me one instance of Windows only hardware based on UEFI. Just one.
I would have to get on my time machine to show you, unfortunately it is being repaired.
Haven't you noticed we are talking about MS asserted future plans!
@fettoosh
So, when you said:
You were lying. Thanks for clearing that up.
Quoting:I would have to get on my time machine to show you, unfortunately it is being repaired.
So, when you said:
Quoting:The issue is with its implementation by the OEMs who are bowing to MS pressure.
You were lying. Thanks for clearing that up.
Ed Bott has a history of being an unreliable source on matters of this sort -- in my opinion (and back in the day when I was a Windows-user I rather admired him for his Windows expertise) he's a well documented and badly-biased Windows fanboy who may know a great deal about Windows, and even criticize MS on occasion, but refuses to countenance any external criticism or concerns from outside the Windows loyalist camp (especially from Linux fans).
More to the point: This nakedly biased, established Linux-denigrater casually called a couple of companies and talked to talked to a couple of nameless "someones" of no particular importance or responsibility at HP and Dell -- who agreeably replied in the negative to to Bott's question, by his own account a question phrased in terms of whether their company was participating in some "conspiracy" with Microsoft to get rid of Linux via their EUFI Secure Boot implementation. This was hardly rigorous investigatory exercise. Or even a pretence of one.
One "spokesperson" (it's not even clear whether these low-level drones were in sales or in marketing) even pointed out it was to soon to say as product development for Win8 systems wasn't that far along yet.
Oddly enough, Ed Bott chose to speak to "representatives" at the two companies that already have a significant amount of (mostly commercial, sever oriented) Linux business. It is hardly surprising to learn that neither company is actively planning to dump their paying Linux business. It is also clear that these alleged "assurances" are even more meaningless when applied to the non-corporate and desktop systems and especially consumer markets.
It is plainly true that EUFI Secure Boot is not inherently "anti-Linux" and that in fact a well implemented EUFI Secure Boot would be equally useful to any OS, including both Linux and Windows.
It is also clear that MS has never been shy about pressuring, or rewarding and punishing OEMs by means both open and covert, legal and illegal, to hamper competition. It's also well documented that MS is willing to employ deliberately malicious and non-compatible implementations of official standards for similar purposes. Thus, to deny that there is any grounds for concern is to ignore both the facts on the ground and the historical record. Chanting that "it's all up to the OEMs" and/or "invisible hand of the free market" is a naive response.
Take home message: there have been no meaningful assurances EUFI Secure Boot will be generally implemented in a proper OS-agnostic manner, and there are reasonable grounds for concern about the matter.
More to the point: This nakedly biased, established Linux-denigrater casually called a couple of companies and talked to talked to a couple of nameless "someones" of no particular importance or responsibility at HP and Dell -- who agreeably replied in the negative to to Bott's question, by his own account a question phrased in terms of whether their company was participating in some "conspiracy" with Microsoft to get rid of Linux via their EUFI Secure Boot implementation. This was hardly rigorous investigatory exercise. Or even a pretence of one.
One "spokesperson" (it's not even clear whether these low-level drones were in sales or in marketing) even pointed out it was to soon to say as product development for Win8 systems wasn't that far along yet.
Oddly enough, Ed Bott chose to speak to "representatives" at the two companies that already have a significant amount of (mostly commercial, sever oriented) Linux business. It is hardly surprising to learn that neither company is actively planning to dump their paying Linux business. It is also clear that these alleged "assurances" are even more meaningless when applied to the non-corporate and desktop systems and especially consumer markets.
It is plainly true that EUFI Secure Boot is not inherently "anti-Linux" and that in fact a well implemented EUFI Secure Boot would be equally useful to any OS, including both Linux and Windows.
It is also clear that MS has never been shy about pressuring, or rewarding and punishing OEMs by means both open and covert, legal and illegal, to hamper competition. It's also well documented that MS is willing to employ deliberately malicious and non-compatible implementations of official standards for similar purposes. Thus, to deny that there is any grounds for concern is to ignore both the facts on the ground and the historical record. Chanting that "it's all up to the OEMs" and/or "invisible hand of the free market" is a naive response.
Take home message: there have been no meaningful assurances EUFI Secure Boot will be generally implemented in a proper OS-agnostic manner, and there are reasonable grounds for concern about the matter.
Excellent summary, Bernard. Bott's "reporting" was useless, and the rest of your points are spot-on.
Why, thank-you :-)
The thing I don't understand is how readily that meme (ie. that there is no problem after all, because supposedly most OEMs have already promised to "do it right") has managed to get such widespread and uncritical acceptance, even in FOSS circles.
The thing I don't understand is how readily that meme (ie. that there is no problem after all, because supposedly most OEMs have already promised to "do it right") has managed to get such widespread and uncritical acceptance, even in FOSS circles.
Quoting:but refuses to countenance any external criticism or concerns from outside the Windows loyalist camp (especially from Linux fans).
Hmm, where have I seen that before.
Oh, right, here. Check.
;)
We have enough Linux friendly vendors that I really don't think it will be a problem.
For example, so what if we can't buy the new Sony Vaio X, the ASUS Y was probably a more compatible machine anyway. Besides, where there is a hacker, there is a way. That is all.
Worst case scenario, System 76 and Zareason git a big boost in sales. In a way, that's still a win.
There are legitimate gripes (Unity, Gnome 3, KDE 4), and there's FUD.
We sift them out, as vigorously as necessary, and then a little harder, just to be sure.
We sift them out, as vigorously as necessary, and then a little harder, just to be sure.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Roy is right this time. It's not a well researched or sourced article, but the conclusion is, by and large, correct.
@gus
If by sift them you, you mean make the community look silly then SUCCESS!
@Caitlyn
I wish he was right about Android, but sadly there have already been multiple cases of malware sneaking into Market.
.. and then there was this:
http://gizmodo.com/5863849/your-android-phone-is-secretly-re...
Quoting:We sift them out, as vigorously as necessary, and then a little harder, just to be sure.
If by sift them you, you mean make the community look silly then SUCCESS!
@Caitlyn
Quoting:Roy is right this time. It's not a well researched or sourced article, but the conclusion is, by and large, correct.
I wish he was right about Android, but sadly there have already been multiple cases of malware sneaking into Market.
.. and then there was this:
Quoting:If you have any decently modern Android phone, everything you do is being recorded by hidden software lurking inside. It even circumvents web encryption and grabs everything—including your passwords and Google queries.
Worse: it's the handset manufacturers and the carriers who—in the name of "making your user experience better"—install this software without any way for you to opt-out. This video, recorded by 25-year-old Android developer Trevor Eckhart, shows how it works. This is bad. Really bad.
http://gizmodo.com/5863849/your-android-phone-is-secretly-re...
Quoting:So, when you said:
Quoting: The issue is with its implementation by the OEMs who are bowing to MS pressure.
You were lying. Thanks for clearing that up.
I don't lie, I don't need to lie and there is no reason for me to lie. It is you who are misinterpreting, misrepresenting, and twisting my words trying to get out of a predicament you put yourself into.
Implementation is a noun that describes a process. It is vastly different from implementing, which is a verb that "puts (a decision, plan, agreement, etc.) into effect".
In regards to "who are bowing...", that is a fact because such OEMs have a well know history of openly and blindly following the instructions and wishes of MS without any regards to the interest of their customers.
Having said that, I think I wasted enough time on your distractions.
Quoting:I don't lie, I don't need to lie and there is no reason for me to lie. It is you who are misinterpreting, misrepresenting, and twisting my words trying to get out of a predicament you put yourself into.
Implementation is a noun that describes a process. It is vastly different from implementing, which is a verb that "puts (a decision, plan, agreement, etc.) into effect".
In regards to "who are bowing...", that is a fact because such OEMs have a well know history of openly and blindly following the instructions and wishes of MS without any regards to the interest of their customers.
Having said that, I think I wasted enough time on your distractions.
Nice try at saving face, but you were caught in a lie. You'll just have to live with it.
Quoting:
We have no desire to make anybody look like a blithering idiot, but we do love it when they do.
Stephen Colbert
@fettoosh - you just make the community look silly.
Good job, bro.
Good job, bro.
Comments on this story are closed.
Do you mean something like informing the user that they need antivirus, and linking them to a page where they can select from a large number of options including their own Microsoft Security Essentials?
Win 7 already does that.
Ugh, this has already been disproven my multiple vendors. In case you weren't aware, RedHat and Canonical are already members of the committee that is working on UEFI (I discovered this after one of my early criticisms).
I just look at the big picture, and don't wear a tinfoil hat. Sorry to disappoint. What were your contributions to the community again? Oh right, nothing.