Linked by Elv13 on Sun 17th Jun 2012 10:35 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 522496
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]: About time for more secure OS's
by ephracis on Sun 17th Jun 2012 20:56
in reply to "RE: About time for more secure OS's"
RE[2]: About time for more secure OS's
by lucas_maximus on Sun 17th Jun 2012 21:33
in reply to "RE: About time for more secure OS's"
RE[3]: About time for more secure OS's
by the_trapper on Sun 17th Jun 2012 23:58
in reply to "RE[2]: About time for more secure OS's"





Member since:
2005-07-07
This isn't about getting things for free, or about making Windows more secure, it's about Microsoft making yet another anti-competitive move. Look at their entire history and if you honestly think that this is all about computer bootloader security, I've got a bridge to sell you. Bootsector viruses are almost a non-issue today. Maybe back in the sneaker-net days of the late eighties and early nineties where floppy-disk boot sector viruses were a huge problem, something like this would've been very helpful. However, today, if you encounter a virus that can attach itself to your boot process, it can also attach itself to other software much higher up the stack with just as much utility to an attacker.
What makes more sense to you, that they are locking the bootloaders to protect against an almost non-existent security threat, or that they are finally so terrified of competition with Linux and Android that they are trying to lock them out?