Linux Foundation UEFI Secure Boot key for Windows 8 PCs delays explained
Summary: Thanks to Microsoft, the Linux Foundation's program for booting Linux easily on Windows 8 PCs protected with Secure Boot is still stuck in neutral.

James Bottomley, Parallels' CTO of server virtualization, well-known Linux kernel maintainer, and the man behind the Linux Foundation's efforts to create an easy way to install and boot Linux on Windows 8 PCs with UEFI (Unified Extensible Firmware Interface) Secure Boot enabled is sorry to report that "We’re still waiting for Microsoft to give the Linux Foundation a validly signed pre-bootloader."
Despite the best efforts of Fedora, openSUSE, Ubuntu, and the Linux Foundation, booting Linux on UEFI Secure Boot Windows 8 PCs continues to be a problem . The easiest way to avoid Windows 8 lock-in is to disable UEFI Secure Boot from your system before it starts to boot. However, this option may not be available on all motherboard; isn't available at all on Windows RT devices, such as the Surface; and is still troublesome even with Secure Boot disabled. So, it is that the struggle—and struggle it is—to create an easy to use, universal install and boot Secure Boot Linux installer continues on.
You don't have to take my word for it. Bottomley reports that, even after jumping through various legal hoops, you can't "just upload a UEFI binary and have it signed First of all you have to wrap the binary in a Microsoft Cabinet file. Fortunately, there is one open source project that can create cabinet files called lcab. Next you have to sign the cabinet file with your Verisign key. Again, there is one open source project that can do this: osslsigncode. For anyone else needing these tools, they’re now available in my openSUSE Build Service UEFI repository."
"The final problem is that the file upload requires silverlight. Unfortunately, moonlight [an open-source Silverlight implementation] doesn’t seem to cut it and even with the version 4 preview, the upload box shows up blank, so time to fire up windows 7 under kvm [Linux's built-in hypervisor]. When you get to this stage, you also have to certify that the binary “to be signed must not be licensed under GPLv3 or similar open source licenses” I assume the fear here is key disclosure but it’s not at all clear (or indeed what 'similar open source licences' actually are)."
Legally that's troublesome, but at least the technical problems seemed in hand. Alas, the trouble was only beginning.
First, creating the cabinet file failed. Eventually Bottomley generated a working UEFI Secure Boot Linux pre-loader but the signing process still indicated that there had been a failure. When he asked Microsoft what was going on, the company replied, "Don’t use that file that is incorrectly signed. I will get back to you." Bottomley speculates that the problem is that the working Secure Boot binary key "is signed with a generic Microsoft key instead of a specific (and revocable) key tied to the Linux Foundation."
So it is that the Linux Foundation is still waiting "for Microsoft to give the Linux Foundation a validly signed pre-bootloader." Until that happens, booting and installing Linux on Windows 8 PCs will remain an order of magnitude harder than it is on earlier model PCs.
Related Stories:
- Linux Foundation support for booting Linux on Windows 8 PCs delayed
- Ubuntu Linux adopts new UEFI boot problem approach
- Linux developers working on Windows UEFI secure boot problem
- Shuttleworth on Ubuntu Linux, Fedora, and the UEFI problem
- Another way around Linux's Windows SecureBoot problem
- Linus Torvalds on Windows 8, UEFI, and Fedora
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Pass the butter...
why cant you boot Windows
Best of both worlds it seems.
Looks like Linux users...
It's complete unrealistic for MS to give significant cooperation to an effort that is contrary to its financial interests.
Please let me edit my posts
For this to work...
EXACTLY
Apples and oranges.
EXACTLY
"but Microsoft screwed up royally with Windows 8 GUI for non-touch displays (i.e. desktops and regular laptops)."
I'm reminded of the reply given when the philosophers went on strike...
Here's the problem. It's not that there are no systems that cannot dual boot. It's not even that there aren't any NEW systems that can't dual boot...
The problem seems to be that the Linux community wants to choose any hardware out there and dual boot on it. A laudable goal, I suppose, but unrealistic.
The number of customers who will reject say, a SurfaceRT tablet because you can't boot it into Linux is microscopic compared to those who want a clean, safe, reliable experience booting it into WinRT.
In the end, until Linux because so commonplace a system on desktops that it has enough market share to make an impact, the right answer is "buy the hardware that works, rather than trying to make the hardware that doesn't work, work."
Sorry, but to most people, the Linux attitude just feels like butting ones head against a wall for the pain of it.
And few things would be more horrifying to MS...
Probably a few reasons...
Yep - can hear teeth chattering from here.. oh wait.. that was just Steven J. typing on his old IBM XT keyboard.
"Why do you think MS has tried so hard to discourage the sale of naked machines?"
Actually, it's more likely the answer lies in the number of pirated copies of Windows floating around (some estimates put pirated Windows installations ahead of legitimate Linux installations). But I guess you can chalk a small part of that up to Linux. Even though Microsoft's bulk OEM licensing predates Linux by about a decade.
According to MS...
According to MS...
The World is literally just a couple of years away from getting the last
laugh!
The evil empire aka Mafiasoft is going down hard thanks to Google Android
and Apple moble NIX which owns 100% of that burgeoning market.
I am personally shorting MS stock to make a ton of money!
And yet ...
The fact of the matter is that the number of people installing Linux as the primary OS on a laptop/PC is vanishingly small and thus, to most OEM's, isn't worth the cost of modifying the manufacturing pipeline and support services
Possibly...
And no, my software preferences are not, and should not, be determined by popular vote.
Absolutely, 100% agree.
Disagree on dual boot, agree on Linux attitude.
Even so, anyone can get a NEW Win7 machine, which does NOT allow UEFI to be on: I just bought one, and Dell offers a ton of them, laptop, desktop, you name it. Dellauction offers NO OS sales of some very recent vintage macines with i3-i7 processors, plenty of RAM and HDD. So do other vendors. So you can create a dual boot machine. You can also go get them built by ZaReason. I can send them any OS combo I want, and they will build a machine to my specs. So it's 'out there'.
False!
1. It was imposed and maintained by force (see Alexander Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archepelago for details.
2. Reliance on central planning and control, rather than individual initiative.
Open source is and always has been a voluntary effort, driven by individual initiative. If you don't want to participate, or use it, then fine, but leave those of us who choose to alone.
There were other reasons
Since MS still have dominant position in Desktop PC segment
MS would have to heavily defend its move to break Secure Boot standard by forbidding its OEMs to add option to disable it (witch is MANDATORY under Secure Boot).
And MS would have to explain why other Operating Systems have troubles with obtaining necessary means for working with MS version of Secure Boot.
So MS must have play openly here.