ie8 fix

Microsoft: Don't blame us if Windows 8's secure boot requirement blocks Linux dual-boot

By | September 23, 2011, 6:28am PDT

Summary: Microsoft officials provided more information on plans for UEFI secure boot support in Windows 8 in response to fears by some users that they may be blocked from dual-booting Linux on Windows 8 machines.

Microsoft officials have indirectly attempted to address concerns that surfaced earlier this week that Windows 8’s secure boot implementation might end up blocking users who want to dual-boot Linux on Windows 8 PCs.

The Microsoft response
— a September 22 blog post on the Building Windows 8 blog — doesn’t ever mention the word “Linux.” Instead, the post adds more information on Windows 8’s support for the Unfied Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) and the secure boot protocol that is part of it.

“For the enthusiast who wants to run older operating systems, the option (disabling secure boot) is there to allow you to make that decision,” said the Microsoft blog post. (The statement didn’t specify whether this is a reference to older versions of Windows only or if it also applies to Linux and other operating systems.)

In the comments section of the post, Windows President Steven Sinofsky got a little closer to directly addressing the issue, noting “How secure boot works with any other operating systems is obviously a question for those OS products :-).”

In the September 22, Microsoft officials noted that:

  • UEFI allows firmware to implement a security policy
  • Secure boot is a UEFI protocol not a Windows 8 feature
  • UEFI secure boot is part of Windows 8 secured boot architecture
  • Windows 8 utilizes secure boot to ensure that the pre-OS environment is secure
  • Secure 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

“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,” according to the post.

Microsoft officials told attendees of the recent Build developers conference that Windows 8 clients must be certified in UEFI mode, and that support for secure boot is a Windows 8 certification requirement. But even though Microsoft is requiring OEMs to support secure boot in UEFI as part of its certification requirements, “OEMs are free to choose how to enable this support,” the new post said.

In other words, with Windows 8 certified systems secure boot support has to be there, but OEMs can decide whether or not they want to allow customers to be able to turn it off and how they handle the signature process for supported operating system versions. In the September 22 post, officials said that Microsoft designed the Windows 8 firmware to allow customers to disable secure boot in the Windows 8 Developer Preview release if they so choose.

By mandating UEFI secure boot support as a Windows 8 requirement, Microsoft is attempting to better secure Windows machines, which is a good thing, obviously. Some have suggested those wanting dual-boot simply run Linux in a VM on Windows 8. But, as the relatively small contingent of users who want to dual-boot Linux note, if the requirement results in users who pay for Windows machines being unable to use them in the way they want, is this fair — or even legal?  Thoughts, readers?

Update (September 26): Red Hat employee Matthew Garrett — whose post last week kicked off the whole Windows 8 UEFI controversy, has posted a two-part response to Microsoft’s latest post on this topic. It ends with:

Microsoft’s rebuttal is entirely factually accurate. But it’s also misleading. The truth is that Microsoft’s move removes control from the end user and places it in the hands of Microsoft and the hardware vendors. The truth is that it makes it more difficult to run anything other than Windows. The truth is that UEFI secure boot is a valuable and worthwhile feature that Microsoft are misusing to gain tighter control over the market. And the truth is that Microsoft haven’t even attempted to argue otherwise.”

Update No. 2: It looks like some Australian Linux users are agitating for possible antitrust-focused legal actions over the coming UEFI secure boot changes.

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

Topics

Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for more than 25 years for a variety of publications and Web sites, and is a frequent guest on radio, TV and podcasts, speaking about all things Microsoft-related. She is the author of Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft plans to stay relevant in the post-Gates era (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Disclosure

Mary-Jo Foley

Freelance journalist/blogger Mary Jo Foley has nothing to disclose. WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). I do not own Microsoft stock or stock in any of its partners or competitors. I have no business ventures that are sponsored by/funded by Microsoft or any of its partners or competitors.

Biography

Mary-Jo Foley

Mary Jo Foley has covered the tech industry for 25 years for a variety of publications, including ZDNet, eWeek and Baseline. She has kept close tabs on Microsoft strategy, products and technologies for the past 10 years. In the late 1990s, she penned the award-winning "At The Evil Empire" column for ZDNet, and more recently the Microsoft Watch blog for Ziff Davis.

Got a tip? Send her an email with your rants, rumors, tips and tattles. Confidentiality guaranteed.

271
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

urtbibv 47 oiw
cmakrejktt55-24379033010722152695635465865113 23rd Nov
rwvuxp,bouvtgqo77, pubsk.
For the 99.999% of users who never need to install another OS, secure boot is a good thing. For the 0.001% of people who do need to install another OS, I think they are also smart enough to disable secure boot so they can install Windows 7 or Linux if they so choose.
@regsrini

Want to use xp, 7 or any other OS think again and you pirates out there are about to get a very nasty form of WGA
@regsrini : Microsoft never considers any other OS on the system. If you wanted to dual boot with previous versions of Windows you HAD to install windows first. The Windows install process was too stupid to be able to detect any previously installed and running OS on the system. The windows install destroyed the ability to run any other OS on the system until you re-installed the other system. Other OS's were clever enough to install themselves by considering other installed OS's and creating a proper dual boot structure.
@dagamer34
And you came with this percentage how?
This is actually VISTA again. With VISTA MS attempted to lock out Linux. There was eventually a work around. Personally this made me ban MS products from home, even though I was thinking of an xbox for my son. He ended up with a Wii.
@kirovs@... This is actually VISTA again. With VISTA MS attempted to lock out Linux.

You read this part right?

Secure boot is a UEFI protocol not a Windows 8 feature
UEFI secure boot is part of Windows 8 secured boot architecture
Windows 8 utilizes secure boot to ensure that the pre-OS environment is secure


Personally this made me ban MS products from home, even though I was thinking of an Xbox for my son. He ended up with a Wii.

So your blindness led your son to have to put up with a Wii? That's just wrong. At least get him a PS3 for Pete's sake.
@Badgered@...
I am sorry I have not made this clearer to you.
It is the same as a behavior, not tech approach. VISTA tried to lock out Linux, this has the same purpose (at least to a large extent). And do not tell me MS does not control OEM's behavior through license policy.
As for PS3 vs Wii, I am sure we could argue all day. I have better things to do...
@kirovs@... VISTA tried to lock out Linux, this has the same purpose

No. It doesn't. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
0 Votes
+ -
Predates Vista
spdragoo@... 23rd Sep
@kirovs@...

UEFi integration came out with Windows *XP* 64-bit.

It's even technically available as a protocol for x86-32 processors (i.e. Windows XP 32-bit). Microsoft never implemented it because the *hardware vendors* weren't interested in it at the time.
@kirovs@...

Are you serious? Was the work-around to make Linux more usable?
@kirovs@...

So everytime Microsoft revises their bootloader, it's an attempt to lock out Linux? The people whose machines boot non-Windows OS don't care, for they write there own boot loaders to the disk. Only the people who try to dual-boot were the ones affected by the improvements to the Windows boot process. There were many welcome improvements in the boot manager for Windows that benefited a huge amount of people, and pissed off a handful of those trying to dual-boot.

Occam's Razor: What's more likely, that Microsoft revised the boot loader to allow for improvements (in the face of EFI machines)? Or as an attempt to prevent the segment of users who want to have both a bootable Windows and another OS?
0 Votes
+ -
@kirovs@...

We have a Wii and a PS3 for various reasons and they're great for their own thing. That xbox and kinnect is awesome though and may well go in the extension.

We probably only use them 1 night a week at most, but still looks worth buying jus for the fun factor. Go buy your son one and dont let him suffer for your pride.

ps It's up to MS if they want to block out others, and for you to buy win8 or not. Will Linux dual boot with OSX or are you going to throw out your Apple products too? (I say dual boot as in plop the disks in and install... not something that might need custom boot loaders and a PHD in computing science, plus a spare week in your life)
@kirovs@...
Linux as too insecure, OS X as too proprietary.

And if your son is like most, he hates you for forcing a Wii on him when al his friends have the better XBox360.
@kirovs@...
I really don't thnk the percentage of people dual booting Linux on a PC or tablet to be anywhere near something that MS would feel the need to lock it out from dual booting on a PC.

You're giving Linux too much weight - what percentage do you think dual boot Windows/Linux?

I would bet that more people dual boot Windows/OS X then they do Windows/Linux.
@kirovs@... "As for PS3 vs Wii, I am sure we could argue all day. I have better things to do...". This is usually stated by someone who CAN'T argue all day about a particular subject.

Sorry, but this kind of cop out always bugs me.
0 Votes
+ -
Yeah, you're a bad parent
A Gray 23rd Sep
@kirovs@... Booo... boooo.. Wii is just aweful. I love my XBox, but if you must hate something because of the maker, go PS3. Or the closest thing to Linux is Android (tablet maybe?) or IPad?

MS doesn't care about Linux on the desktop anymore, they care about Linux on mobile.
@kirovs@... -> "With VISTA MS attempted to lock out Linux."

Please provide details and verifiable reference to where you got those details. As far as I can tell, people are successfully dual booting with Linux and Post-XP Windows (Vista, Win7, Server 2008, etc.) so without references, your statement is FUD, pure and simple.
@kirovs@...
i believed UEFI is originally a brainchild of intel. it was conceived as replacement to the BIOS that is showing age. it has nothing to do with m$.
@kirovs@..."OEMs can decide whether or not they want to allow customers to be able to turn it off and how they handle the signature process for supported operating system versions"

Doesn't sound like they are controlling the OEM's to me. And I kinda bet this is more about security, and not about locking linux out.
@kirovs@...
Indeed, viewing Microsoft's track record, and especially the foggy relationship with OEM's, there is any reason to check this out.
That relationship already make many people pay for an OS they do not want, and make you pay more for Windows if you dares testing something else on your hardware before.
Microsoft can very well install evaluation copy's. It can very well sell it's OS via a website with lower costs than distributing it via OEM's.
The MOJ should look to it that this solution is open to all competitors, we should not be depended on the OEM. And they should check the other points I mentioned also.
@kirovs@...
as someone who worked on/with vista BEFORE the launch, and still use it to this day, it has never blocked me from using linux, and never needed any "workarounds". You likely have never touched a vista machine if you actually believe that nonsense.
@PollyProteus@...
I could believe that if it was not for the verifiable act, subject of a famous lawsuit where MS were characterized by the judge to be mafia like enterprise that MS forced OEMs to sell ONLY Windows. So from there on every time MS makes it more difficult or next to impossible to boot Linux alongside with Windows my first assumption is they are playing it dirty and the burden is on them to prove this is not the case. End of story.
@kirovs@... Good, now I have to deal with one less idiot on XBox Live games
@kirovs@... Do you have any proof to back this up? And was it that MS tried to block Linux from dual booting with Vista or was Vista just a steaming pile of crap? I'm going for the latter theory myself and FWIW I have no issues at all dual booting Windows 7 and Ubuntu Linux with Unity.
"So from there on every time MS makes it more difficult or next to impossible to boot Linux alongside with Windows my first assumption is they are playing it dirty and the burden is on them to prove this is not the case."

No, the burden of proof is always on the accuser.
@kirovs@...

You are seriously deluded if you think Microsoft believes Desktop Linux is a threat. They are not that stupid.
@kirovs@... "... every time MS makes it more difficult or next to impossible to boot Linux alongside with Windows my first assumption is they are playing it dirty ..."

That says far more about you than you say about Microsoft.

Microsoft was found to be using business practices that whilst common throughout many businesses, was seen as inappropriate for Microsoft because of their overwhelming market percentage. This was almost 10 years ago.

Since then, Microsoft has completely changed how it does business and operated under DOJ oversight until March 2011.

Continuing to accuse Microsoft of behaviour which they've not exhibited in almost a decade is irrational at best.

At the end of the day, your suspicions are yours alone. This issue is already well documented and is clearly not a Microsoft plot to prevent PC's from dual-booting any other OS - it's a sound and effective strategy to help prevent several broad classes of malware and make end-users' computing experiences safer and more reliable.
@Michael Alan Goff@...
I am gonna answer most MS fanboys/idiots on the forum, but this caught my attention:
"No, the burden of proof is always on the accuser. "
No, it is not. First of all I am not a court and can choose what the rules are gonna be. And even in court prior verifiable record counts.

Oh and this gem:
"Since then, Microsoft has completely changed how it does business and operated under DOJ oversight until March 2011."
I do not even have to comment this. You are not bitcrazed, Just crazy.
@kirovs@...

Thank you for helping me figure out that you're just a troll.

Ignored.
@kirovs@... The stupidity... It hurts. Microsoft can develop whatever operating system they want, and it doesn't have to conform to Linux standards, or play nicely with Linux. When talking about dual boot standards, this world has gone into an idiotic frenzy talking about anti-trust, lawsuits, blah-de-fn-blah. The truth is that Microsoft doesn't HAVE to make their OS conform to Linux, it is, and always has been Linux's responsibility to conform to the current tech. What, we hinder progress now based on the fact that Linux can't catch up? I think not. Besides, they have always found a way.

What I absolutely LOVE THE MOST is all these Linux doorknobs coming out of the woodwork screaming and crying about how MS won't allow them to dual boot while stating (with a forked tongue) how they would NEVER use a Microsoft product anyway?

What the heck is that??
@kirovs@...
There are several times more pirated Windows machines in the universe than all flavours of Linux put together, so I think Microsoft is more concerned about pirated Windows than Linux. That has to be the primary motive for including secure boot - Linux is marginal, whether you like it or not.
@dagamer34
Agree.
Those who build custom machines or install other OS could figure out what UEFI is and most likely OEM or motherboard vendors will include an option to enable/disable secure boot.

SJVN is spreading FUD about this topic.
@owlnet
1. Consumers should not be required to HACK THEIR PURCHASES to get control over it or do what they've done since the PC XT. What if you had to solve a Rubik's cube to run Windows 8?
2. "Most likely" isn't comforting. "Microsoft is adding the requirement that secure boot can be disabled to its list of Windows 8 logo specifications" would be comforting and remove any charges that Microsoft is enjoying the idea of the side benefit of this move.
@owlnet: Are you sure MS won't be treating those who do NOT let the user disable secure boot a little better then the OEM:s who give the user a choice?
It's not like that would surprise anybody considering all the tactics MS have used previously.
@jgm

"consumers" don't hack their systems, they don't care, they just want their purchased systems to work. Geeks like me and you care about the ability to self-hack their systems, but here's the part that you're intentionally ignoring: YOU CAN TURN OFF SECURE BOOT, and then install anything you want.

Basically: Quit complaining about something that isn't anything at all.

You ABM Linux whiners really irritate me. I thought you were supposed to be the techno-elite, that's what you all keep trying to tell me, but all this whining I keep seeing tells me that you're nothing but a bunch of selfish crybabies.
@owlnet
UEFI is nothing but a glorified BIOS, meaning an interface between the machine hardware and the software running on it. just like the old bios that it will replace. it will contain the hardware addresses of your integrated hardware peripherals (memories, i/o, timers, etc.) so that your o/s can access them. uefi will be more secure, because it was designed with security as part of its design. ever heard of bios attack before?
@owlnet

SJVN is synonymous with FUD. This is no different. It's his fear factor... and his favorite subject. What is funny to me, he fears Microsoft instead of adapting to an ever changing landscape that all OS manufacturers face. He fears change, despite it's inherent furtherment of secure computers. If the landscape changes, first fear it, second blame Microsoft, third defend what is known (Linux) and defer incompetence as conspiracy. The world changes. Adapt or die. Boot security is the next frontier, like it or not. Have you no faith in Linux's ability to adapt?

Edit: So, Linux cannot overcome a minor UEFI change? How resilient is that as the landscape grows within the OS environment? Have you lost faith with Linux programmers, altogether? It seems such a 'next step' for security, you must have to admit your lack of readyness speaks to a level of incompetence. (Read: Microsoft acknowledges and is imparting a fix for BIOS/Boot level malware). Are you sure you want to exclude your favorite OS from acknowleging the same threat at this time? If the answer is 'no', what are you/Linux doing about it currently?

PS - thanks for your milkshake.
@dagamer34
Not only that, nobody who runs multiple OSes uses dual-boot anymore. Virtual machines are a more secure and simpler way to do it. So, it makes me wonder...

Are all these bloggers complete morons?

Everyone is shouting "OMG, we can't dual boot anymore!" But my guess is they weren't dual booting anyway. Everyone with any sense runs other OSes in a virtual machine. Windows 8 actually makes it EASIER to run Linux because Hyper-V ships with it. These headlines should be "Windows 8 makes it too easy to run Linux!!"
@BillDem Virtualization is a great tool, but it's worthless for hardware testing (driver stability and function testing). If you create images for desktop refresh or other desktop deployments.
@BillDem I generally set up all my "pre-windows installed" machines as dual-boot. Then I use Ubuntu almost exlusively (becuase I prefer that), and boot Windows on rare occasions for example I have to call tech support, or run a silverlight web app or some other MS only crap.

Many machines do not have the memory to effectively run VMs either - such as all netbooks, which are prime candidates for Ubuntu, but one may occasionally want Windows.
@BillDem
As the COO of a High Tech company, I can tell you that the number of engineers/developers who run Linux on a dual boot system, in our company as in many others is quite large. Maybe none of us has any sense... VM simply don't cut it for development.
@BillDem Right because a VM allows full 3d hardware acceleration... except it DOESN'T! I guess I would be 'nobody' because I run Arch Linux and Windows 7 dual-boot on separate hard drives on my desktop. On my laptop I have a Windows 7 drive for work, and a OS X Snow Leopard drive, and a Sabayon Linux drive as well. Maybe people are yelling OMG we can't dual boot anymore because, well clearly, THEY DUAL BOOT!
@BillDem,

I don't think you get it, One of the main reasons you run Linux is performance. Why would you run a striped down ultra high performance Linux distro on top of some bloated Windows OS? If I ever decided to run Windows, it would be a virtualized windows running on Linux or OS X.
@BillDem
Over and over and over you keep saying this and now calling people morons but it's you who can't fathom the idea that if people saying "it affects me" then IT AFFECTS THEM.

Bill, meet ME. My name is Joseph G. Mitzen, and I am a dual booter. I use Windows XP to run the few computer games I can't get running with WINE in Linux. 3D games simply don't run with decent performance (if at all) in VMs. This has apparently never occurred to you. VMs also can't directly access hardware. If I wish to use the old video input device I have to occasionally input some video into my PC and which doesn't have Linux (or Win7) drivers, a VM won't cut it. If I were running Windows as my main OS and wanted to use Linux's Kismet to do wireless network intrusion detection or monitoring, Kismet needs low-level access to the wireless chip that only linux wireless chip drivers offer. You can't get that from a VM. If I needed to access legacy RS-232, parallel or industrial interface hardware installed on expansion cards in a PC, I can't do that in a VM. In short, these bloggers aren't morons, Bill. You simply haven't spent a moment either ASKING people why they need/want to dual boot or thinking about the reasons yourself. Perhaps it's you yourself who don't use VMs?

Secondly, many of us don't CARE that Windows 8 makes it easier to run Linux "because Hyper-V ships with it". You just don't seem to be able to comprehend the posters who are unhappy. WE. DON'T. RUN. WINDOWS. WINDOWS. 8. IS. NOT. GOING. TO. BE. OUR. PRIMARY. OS. We do not want to boot into Windows 8, update Windows 8, secure Windows 8, tweak Windows 8, and then run our REAL OS in a virtual machine at half the speed of our processor. WE. RUN. LINUX. FULL. TIME. Would you be happy if you were told that from now on you needed to run Linux as your OS (for a $200 charge) and then could only run Windows in a virtual machine? No? THEN WHY DO YOU THINK WE'RE HAPPY?

Bill, the headline should not be "Windows 8 makes it easy to run Linux!" It should be "Microsoft confirms ham-fisted use of monopoly power may keep people from being able to choose what runs on their own machine".

I hope this clarifies things for you.
@BillDem: Uhm... Dual boot is simply just better, IMHO.
I don't want to run Linux in Windows, it would screw up the whole advantage of it. Linux performs better (load management, network speeds, etc) and handles memory better, and all that.
And I don't want to run Windows in Linux, because then how would I be able to play those games?

So no, FAR from everbody use VM:s.
0 Votes
+ -
@BillDem
If MS does this to better secure their OS, it's your thinking that they should make it less secure in the off chance that someone might want to run another OS along side it??

Joseph, the headline should not be "Windows 8 makes it easy to run Linux!" It should be "Linux Zealots confirm feelings that the world should bend to their needs above all others.

I hope this clarifies things for you.
@BillDem - I dual-boot my notebook, so "nobody" is not a good term to use. But then, it appears I'm smarter than your average Linux user because I look for solutions instead of whining and complaining about something that is really nothing.

Just sayin'...
@BillDem Just thought of saying the same.
@William Farrell:

If only ZDNet had a "like" flag, I would thumbs-up your comment in a heartbeat.
0 Votes
+ -
urtbibv 47 oiw
cmakrejktt55-24379033010722152695635465865113 23rd Nov
rwvuxp,bouvtgqo77, pubsk.

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

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