Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 22nd Jun 2012 23:17 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 523418
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.
I agree with WereCatf and would add this reeks of 'Security Theater' to move an agenda forward that has more to do with control of revenue opportunity then real security.
Not to say that boot security is not a concern without veracity, but the aggressive move to adoption, lack of anything that resembles peer review, and obvious pressure from the Vole -- just smells bad.




Member since:
2006-02-15
I really have to say that all this feels more like trying to kill a fly with a god damn nuclear weapon; there are extremely few modern boot-sector viruses -- I atleast am not aware of a single one -- and you don't need boot-sector viruses anyway to cause damage. As long as the virus/malware has access to users' files and input devices then the users are already screwed and Secure Boot does not prevent that. Besides, a virus shouldn't even get to the point of being able to infect the boot sector in the first place.
That is to say that Secure Boot solves only a highly theoretical issue that really isn't all that pressing a matter, atleast for now. It doesn't mean it's useless, but it's given way too much weight. The bigger issue, though, is that Secure Boot is all controlled and designed by Microsoft. If it was really aimed at securing end-users then there would be a public design-and-approval process and some sort of a multi-party committee to govern the keys and Secure Boot-usage in order to ensure proper cross-platform functionality, to find and fix any faults with the implementation and to not let only a single party control the whole thing when it has the potential of affecting every single PC-user and manufacturer. That right there is my one, single biggest issue with Secure Boot.