OSNews

Doc Pain,

"But even with SecureBoot seen in all its glory and wonderfulness, there are many other attack vectors remaining. Security theatre as usual."

Well, the trouble is, even when secure boot is functioning properly, boot malware will slip right by unnoticed if it's signed by someone who's purchased a microsoft code signing cert. That's not going to stop a determined attacker. In my opinion secure boot ought to have been designed to alert the owner to system alterations such that even signed malware would raise flags if the user didn't make those changes.

Just a sidenote: Maybe you're intrested in reading this article regarding boot infections:

Marco Giuliani:
Mebromi: the first BIOS rootkit in the wild
http://blog.webroot.com/2011/09/13/mebromi-the-first-bios-rootkit-i...

But even with SecureBoot seen in all its glory and wonderfulness, there are many other attack vectors remaining. Security theatre as usual. "

Thanks for the link. As I said I'm aware this kind of threats exist, but as someone said earlier, it's just like killing a mosquito with a pick-hammer. It is unreasonable.
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/stateme... sign it people!

It's the Nth time recently that this quote comes to mind:
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

I have, but exactly what do you think that will accomplish? Microsoft doesn't give a shit how many signatures are on a stupid petition. It does not matter. Even if they get a million signatures, that's a million out of a potential customer base of several billion. Do you honestly think Microsoft's fat cats are going to lose a single bit of sleep over FSF's petition? Some better questions are, where is the EFF? Where is the SFLC? How about the rest of FSF's lawyers? Why aren't they combating this in a way that might, however unlikely, actually work? Petitions have no teeth, and we're going to need to bite hard to even have a chance at stopping this before it spirals out of control. It's probably already too late.