ie8 fix
madison

Hardware 2.0

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Microsoft confirms that UEFI 'secure boot' might lock out Linux and older versions of Windows from new PCs

By | September 23, 2011, 6:02am PDT

Summary: If you’ll be wanting to install Linux or an older version of Windows on that Windows 8 PC, you’d better do your research before you buy.

A few days ago, Red Hat developer Matthew Garrett raised the possibility that Linux (not to mention earlier versions of Windows) could be locked out of new PCs due to Microsoft’s insistence that Windows 8 logo certified PCs will have the ’secure boot’ feature of UEFI enabled. Microsoft has now responded to this concern … and there is cause to be concerned.

Microsoft’s Tony Mangefeste of the Ecosystem team has written a long post over on the Building Windows 8 blog. The post is, in my opinion, far too long and winding and the issue of ’secure boot’ and whether it can be disabled aren’t addressed until the last two paragraphs:

At the end of the day, the customer is in control of their PC. Microsoft’s philosophy is to provide customers with the best experience first, and allow them to make decisions themselves. We work with our OEM ecosystem to provide customers with this flexibility. The security that UEFI has to offer with secure boot means that most customers will have their systems protected against boot loader attacks. For the enthusiast who wants to run older operating systems, the option is there to allow you to make that decision.

A demonstration of this control is found in the Samsung tablet with Windows 8 Developer Preview that was offered to //BUILD/ participants. In the screenshot below you will notice that we designed the firmware to allow the customer to disable secure boot. However, doing so comes at your own risk. OEMs are free to choose how to enable this support and can further customize the parameters as described above in an effort to deliver unique value propositions to their customers. Windows merely did work to provide great OS support for a scenario we believe many will find valuable across consumers and enterprise customers.

I’ve read and re-read those two paragraphs several times and think that it can be fairly summarized as follows:

  • Microsoft says it wants consumers to be in charge
  • Microsoft makes the OS, OEMs make the PC
  • Microsoft wants ’secure boot’ enabled because it believes that it makes the PC safer
  • Disabling ’secure boot’ is risky
  • The Samsung tablets given out at BUILD had the option to disable ’secure boot’ …
  • … but, how OEMs handle this feature on new PCs is up to them, so you could be stuffed when it comes to installing Linux or even an older version of Windows on your new PC
  • If you’re stuffed by your OEM, don’t go crying to Microsoft

So, Garrett was right to be concerned.

I’m concerned too. I’m concerned because over the years I’ve seen plenty of bone-headed restrictions placed on BIOSes on OEM PCs, and since it’s the same companies responsible for UEFI, so we can expect more bone-headedness. Also, OEMs all participare in a race to the bottom in terms of price, and this inevitably results in cost cutting and dropped features. If having a feature to disable ’secure boot’ in the UEFI costs the OEMs money, then it’s something that could well be given the chop.

BUT - This is not really a Microsoft issue (beyond Microsoft insisting that OEMs use UEFI and ’secure boot’ in the name of security), this is an OEM issue. If OEMs give users the ability to switch this feature off, this is not going to be a problem.

If you’re going to be wanting to install Linux, or for that matter an older version of Windows, on that new Windows 8 PC, you’d better do your research before you buy.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

Disclosure

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

All opinions expressed on Hardware 2.0 are those of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Every effort is made to ensure that the information posted is accurate. If you have any comments, queries or corrections, please contact Adrian via the email link here. Any possible conflicts of interest will be posted below. [Updated: February 23, 2010] - Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other actual/potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted so far on this blog.

Biography

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology -- whether that be by learning to program, building a PC from a pile of parts, or helping them get the most from their new MP3 player or digital camera.

Adrian has authored/co-authored technical books on a variety of topics, ranging from programming to building and maintaining PCs. His most recent books include "Build the Ultimate Custom PC", "Beginning Programming" and "The PC Doctor's Fix It Yourself Guide". He has also written training manuals that have been used by a number of Fortune 500 companies.

Adrian also runs a popular blog under the name The PC Doctor, where he covers a range of computer-related topics -- from security to repairing and upgrading.

32
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Microsoft confirms that UEFI 'secure boot' might lock out Linux and older versions of Windows from new PCs
explodingwalrus Updated - 29th Sep
@BillDem how is dual booting insecure? I'm also pretty damn sure no one has ever compromised GRUB or LILO. Virtual machines are no good for apps that need decent hardware acceleration. i rarely even use Windows these days, all mine are Linux or Mac
Good! No reason to have linux on the PC anyway. Microsoft just did the world a favor.
@LoverockDavidson_

Ah I see you have had to change your name, why is that ?
@LoverockDavidson_ ha i didn't even have to check the name, knew it'd be you, please, hence forth to the rock you crawled out from.
... Or just build your own.

But, seriously, how many "average consumers" dual boot? Next to none. This is better for them.

It's funny how this issue is causing concern only because the 'L' word is involved. SJVN seemed to nearly have a coronary because of it, yet failed to lay out any facts or even demonstrate any technical knowledge on it or why it's even there to begin with. The main issue here is malware not Linux.
@Cylon Centurion Definitely. Even techies don't dual-boot anymore. That's what VM's are for. This media frenzy over it is just stupid.
@BillDem We addressed this already. When you can play Crysis 2 or access PCIe hardware in your VM, we'll talk. Otherwise... VMs aren't a solution. In addition, your scenario suggests that everyone in the world MUST run Windows 8 as their primary OS whether they want to or not. That's ridiculous.
@Cylon Centurion
SJVN never makes his points with facts, but only those arguments that support his interests (open source). I don't know how his posts pass editorial standards on zdnet.

and as BillDem says VM's are a far better choice for most situations. If you still insistn on dual boot (like me), you are probably smart enough to disable secure boot from UEFI.
The whole discussion surrounding this issue has just been too naive IMO. From what I see it is all about security. But if you listen to MS haters, it is all about locking people out of Linux or other OSes.
@regsrini
Sigh. SJVN was right, and this post confirms it. This post suggests that it might not be possible to disable UEFI on some devices. You ignore that too. You also ignore the fact that whatever the motive, it DOES lock people out of using non Windows 8 OSes on their own hardware, and if some guy at RedHat thought of that, Microsoft had to think of it too but apparently not care. You ALSO ignore the fact that Microsoft refused to respond to queries about this UNTIL ZDNet got up in arms about it.
@jgm

SJVN was NOT right. To him, he claims this is all about Linux. His posts are nothing more than FUD about how Microsoft is out to kill Linux once and for all and fails to mention any basic facts about the technology or what it's purpose is.

Now, chances are on a tablet device you will not be able to disable secure boot, as dual booting a tablet is pretty useless. You bought the tablet for a purpose. Desktops and laptops however are more likely to be dual booted and will most likely feature the option to disable secure boot, but Microsoft is right in suggesting this feature be turned on by default. Joe User isn't in the game of dual booting and it will keep him/her safe without having to make him/her run all over their system to turn it on.

However, there is nothing in the technology preventing you from wiping the system with a non OEM disk and using another OS.

Secured boot doesn???t ???lock out??? operating system loaders, but is is a policy that allows firmware to validate authenticity of components
OEMs have the ability to customize their firmware to meet the needs of their customers by customizing the level of certificate and policy management on their platform
Microsoft does not mandate or control the settings on PC firmware that control or enable secured boot from any operating system other than Windows
@cylon

>SJVN was NOT right. To him, he claims this is all about
>Linux.

He never claimed it was "all about" Linux. He did claim it would hurt Linux while everyone else was denying that the Red Hat engineer's take on things was even correct.

>His posts are nothing more than FUD about how
>Microsoft is out to kill Linux once and for all and fails to
>mention any basic facts about the technology or what >it's purpose is.

That's funny, I never read him claiming this and all of the posts on ZDNet have explained the technology quite clearly.


>Now, chances are on a tablet device you will not be
>able to disable secure boot, as dual booting a tablet is
>pretty useless. You bought the tablet for a purpose.

Please don't tell me what that purpose is, however. Also, dual booting may have nothing to do with it. Example: Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop runs on x86 but not ARM. An enterprise user may very well want to purchase an x86 tablet, remove Windows, and run SLED on it. That would be the purpose, and the purpose would be foiled.

>Desktops and laptops however are more likely to be dual
>booted and will most likely feature the option to disable
>secure boot,

"Most likely" isn't good enough and is little more than a guess, not a guarantee by Microsoft or OEMS. How'd you like to be managing a facility that uses linux for desktop and servers and be told "most likely" there will be hardware that will support your OS in the future, but maybe not, just wait and see what happens? Think about it for a second, then see how casual you'd be about the situation.

>but Microsoft is right in suggesting this feature be
>turned on by default. Joe User isn't in the game of dual
>booting and it will keep him/her safe without having to
>make him/her run all over their system to turn it on.

I've got no problem with that. I DO have a problem with Microsoft requiring it on, but not requiring that it can be disabled, in their specifications. Just by making that extra small requirement Microsoft gains all the security and doesn't screw any other users or OSes in the process. They didn't bother.

>However, there is nothing in the technology preventing
>you from wiping the system with a non OEM disk and
>using another OS.

Yes, there is: the key in the BIOS. If it doesn't match the boot files, it's not booting.

>Secured boot doesnt lock out operating system loaders,
>but is is a policy that allows firmware to validate
>authenticity of components

Again, if there's a Microsoft key and only a Microsoft key in the EFI, how is it not locking out boot files?

>Microsoft does not mandate or control the settings on
>PC firmware that control or enable secured boot from
>any operating system other than Windows

Microsoft is controlling things, because it's using its Win8 certification to require this change. Making a change and then saying "It's not my responsibility" by not requiring the change made in such a way as to not interfere with competitors is akin to saying, "I didn't kill him... the bullet killed him, I just fired the gun." It's no different than if Apple got a spec changed (say, Thunderbolt) in such a way that it wouldn't work with Windows 8, and then saying it's not their fault and it's up to to every individual vendor to work around the spec to get Windows devices working. We'd all see through that bit of playing innocent in a second.
@Cylon Centurion The main issue is Microsoft pretending its the only OS in the room and making a move to make IT more safe that inconveniences everyone else in the process.
@jgm@...

Microsoft isn't pretending anything. They have publicly announced that they know Windows 8 will be run along side Windows 7 and more or less Windows Vista/XP.
@Cylon Without the ability to disable secure boot, that won't happen. The only way Microsoft can guarantee this is if they've made disabling secure boot a requirement, and nothing they've said indicates they have. Maybe they know it will run "alongside" 8 on legacy hardware?
0 Votes
+ -
How is this even a surprise?
Dietrich T. Schmitz * Your Linux Advocate 23rd Sep
Not a big deal, IMO.
@Dietrich T. Schmitz * Your Linux Advocate No? How so? The Linux project got started on commodity PC hardware. If UEFI had existed then the Linux project wouldn't have been viable.

I'm sure I don't want to see Linux (or indeed the BSD variants) become the sole preserve of "big business". I think it's healthy that kernel hackers can try out their own ideas without sponsorship of a large corporation.

While I don't think it was Microsoft's intention, I do think this will have a VERY negative impact on "on the metal open source" projects - of which Linux is the most successful example.
0 Votes
+ -
How So?
facebook@... 23rd Sep
@Jeremy-UK Much ado about nothing. for the .01% of the PC population that needs to run a second OS with UEFI-capable hardware, they can figure out how to do it.
0 Votes
+ -
It's a solution for protecting BIOS and software integrity.
Dietrich T. Schmitz * Your Linux Advocate 23rd Sep
@Jeremy-UK

There will be other solutions. Remember that IBM originally developed the IBM PC Bios to 'protect' their market.

That route ultimately failed and eventually IBM got out of the PC manufacturing business as competing clones with near-perfect emulation of the IBM-PC Bios emerged and caused the market to become fractious and commodity priced.
@Facebook, how about you have to run Linux on your PC unless you want to "figure out how to" run Windows? Sound fun? No? Thought so. Microsoft one-upping Apple doesn't bother you at all?
0 Votes
+ -
.. of being a little more paranoia than complete substance. Why? Because such a move has Anti-Trust written over it. MS wouldn't dare go down that road again. So, if i had to hazard a guess, i'd go with MS OEM partners making only retail, OEM machines logo / W8 certified - but with OEM's having the ultimate last say.

Furthermore, I think the only way for UEFI to work is if all hardware that is bought above and beyond retail, OEM outlets would have to be exempt - or made UEFI-optional for those that purchase parts (i.e. to build a pc). That way, users are warned that if they buy non-UEFI devices, their PC becomes non-W8 logo certified: ergo, the end-user is made aware of the repercussions of building a pc that will not support W8 (oob) and, therefore, cannot be W8 certified.

The OEM's and independent hardware retailers have to know that locking out users is majorly problematic (to say the least) as they risk losing a revenue source - amongst already squeezed and marginal revenue sources, as it is.

The absolute worse case scenario (if MS goes down this road) is that such a move scares the public into staying with older hardware and OS's: with the uncertainty and fear, that, replacement becomes too expensive an option. Flow on is, many of these users switch to Apple or simply stay with aging systems (e.g. XP, W7) & ancillary hardware.

Although i personally can't see MS playing the "UEFI card" (across the board), Redmond have to know the days of strong-arming the public into lock-in-by-gun-to-the-head type tactics is not the way to win the public over. As DTS has already pointed out, IBM tried a similarly bad move .. and we now know how that turned out for them.

To finish, I really can't see it happening - as it's tantamount to MS proverbially shooting themselves in the foot. W8 will float or sink on its own ... cramming it down the throats of new PC buyers - and locking them into a new h/w-OS paradigm - is not the way to go (...by a long shot). Give the public freedom of choice and you win them over .. that's a truism you can take to the bank.
@Dietrich T. Schmitz * Your Linux Advocate

And I agree completely that this is *not* a big deal. I have used Linux exclusively for over ten years and I keep having to pinch myself because with all the "sky is falling" rhetoric going on, I just can't bring myself to lose any sleep over this. In the end I think that at least some Linux distros will actually end up *supporting* "secure boot". For others, their users tend to be tech savvy and will check on this when they buy their mobo or system just like they check on a host of other issues like hardware support for example. In some cases you will indeed be able to turn it off. In other cases since its UEFI, you will be able to flash the chip will a free software version of UEFI for your board. In fact that is going to become a whole new industry. You could do it with BIOS but it wasn't very convenient or useful. With UEFI it gets very interesting. In the end this is going to only produce opportunities, but there are ALWAYS people who can only see these things from a paranoia perspective. Me? I think it is going to solve at least as many, if not more, problems than it creates.
@Dietrich T. Schmitz * Your Linux Advocate
Totally agree. Linux can still be run as a VM on Windows 8, so who cares? Dual-booting is antiquated and not secure.
0 Votes
+ -
@BillDem
I have always run Linux on the "bare metal". Why on Earth do you think I'm suddenly going to consent to buying and running a copy of Windows, just so that I can run Linux in a VM?!
@BillDem Or running Linux full time... While I do have both kinds of system (and Macs too) dual boot is quite unusual here. Most of the machines are either Linux or Windows (or Mac). As for running a VM on Windows... honestly that's not going to fly for most people. If I have a system running Linux it's usually a cheap box doing something small (so paying for an OS would add significantly to the cost) OR it's a monster doing something big, and I want ALL the performance.
@BillDem how is dual booting insecure? I'm also pretty damn sure no one has ever compromised GRUB or LILO. Virtual machines are no good for apps that need decent hardware acceleration. i rarely even use Windows these days, all mine are Linux or Mac
Added bonus! They can look like they are doing something to fight malware (of which almost none lives in the boot loader) and get rid of the competition at the same time. Winning!
@grant@... Exactly HOW does Microsoft control this? They provide secure boot SUPPORT. Clearly, if the OEM chooses, they can include a EUFI setting to enable or disable this feature. Now, IF Microsoft should offer an OEM *anything* to leave this setting OUT (in an attempt to extend their monopoly), THEN you have an actionable case, IMO. (Though I am not a lawyer.) Otherwise, it's all on the OEMs. And really, what company would want the bad pub of leaving this setting out?
@bmgoodman How do they control this. They're a MONOPOLY. They CONTROL the situation because they are REQUIRING OEMs to make this change if they want to be certified, and no manufacturer who's not certified can survive.
Don't play coy. They could require them to be able to disable it and avoid all the brouhaha. They don't have to require it to stay enabled; they just have to not bother and go on and on about how valuable it is for it to be there AND ON and many OEMs simply might not bother. Linux has nothing to do with the advantage to Microsoft. The advantage is new, locked hardware forcing people to upgrade to Win 8 and Microsoft then avoids the zombie XP situation that occurred when the market wasn't happy with Vista (and Win8 is an even bigger change than Vista was from XP). Are you going to let them pretend this notion never, ever crossed their minds?
"Of course" that Microsoft does not dictate the rules of the market, but with its monopoly, it greatly influences the direction of its decisions. This certification can influence the way the average user who has no access to the kind of information that the logo represents, decide what to buy. I can see, the father goes to store to buy a new computer and look at the computer that has the logo and the other does not. Then your child says, "Dad this computer does not run the windows 8, let's get one that has the logo". Adding this to the FUD that will be promoted by the media biased and then we have a new dream of the Microsoft ecosystem. In this scenario which OEM will risk getting behind in this competition?
Hmmm looks like a lot of posts deleted over the weekend.

The truth shall not set them free...
0 Votes
+ -
Home builders?
DOSlover 26th Sep
This might just be the move required to inspire a few more people to build their own systems or explore virtualisation. Not because they want linux necesarily but because there are more than a few out there who want to use older incarnations of Windows. Look out OEMs if you fail to make this an option for user control!
OEM's can keep their PC's and Microsoft can keep their operating systems. I guess the day of reckoning has finally come. I do not believe that It is the OEM's and not Microsoft doing this. In the past, Microsoft has always collaborated with the OEM's and I think Microsoft is still behind all this. I have always check before I buy a motherboard to be Linux compatible and will continue to do so. If the motherboard manufacturers want to sell their product then they will make motherboards that will run Linux. I feel this will just make more people and businesses switch over to Linux quicker. Microsoft is just going to lose their clientele. With Linux, you do not have to activate the operating system. Good riddance Microsoft.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix