Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 20th Sep 2011 22:30 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 490211
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: [UEFI/Secure Boot/TPM] It might be worse
by Lennie on Wed 21st Sep 2011 12:12
in reply to "RE: [UEFI/Secure Boot/TPM] It might be worse"
RE[3]: [UEFI/Secure Boot/TPM] It might be worse
by bnolsen on Wed 21st Sep 2011 13:26
in reply to "RE[2]: [UEFI/Secure Boot/TPM] It might be worse"
RE[2]: [UEFI/Secure Boot/TPM] It might be worse
by n4cer on Wed 21st Sep 2011 15:15
in reply to "RE: [UEFI/Secure Boot/TPM] It might be worse"
RE[3]: [UEFI/Secure Boot/TPM] It might be worse
by ilovebeer on Wed 21st Sep 2011 15:33
in reply to "RE[2]: [UEFI/Secure Boot/TPM] It might be worse"
To enable usage of non-Secure Boot OSes, Secure Boot may be disabled in the firmware just as the TPM can, and TPM is not required for Secure Boot.
It's not a license enforcement mechanism.
It's used to ensure the boot path is not compromised and protect against malware.
It's not a license enforcement mechanism.
It's used to ensure the boot path is not compromised and protect against malware.
Sanity has been restored. *golf clap*
Now if only we could get the conspiracy theorists to live in the real world...





Member since:
2005-09-10
If this is sold as a Windows copy protection measurement for Microsoft, couldn't you just make windows install media and the installed OS query the system for signatures without having to lock out other OSes...?