Linked by Howard Fosdick on Thu 6th Dec 2012 05:26 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 544440
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.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2010-01-21
if using Windows Signature,
and BIOS activate the network,
then Microsoft could
play with my linux?
I know that UEFI is about identity;
The first in the stack "owns" the stack.
But, could it be that
the BIOS designer,
-the non writable part of the BIOS-
is the real "owner" of the stack?
Looks that way.
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/11235.html
Also, the reference UEFI implementation most motherboard builders are using is demonstrably buggy and at least as complex as your average OS kernel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2aq5M3Q76U
One of the reasons I'll probably be trying to source BIOS-based motherboards for as long as possible and, when that's no longer an option, I'll try to source something known to support reflashing with CoreBoot so I can prune it down to the minimum amount of code needed to boot Linux.
http://www.coreboot.org/
On the plus side, it does mean plenty of room for rooting the UEFI itself which could really put some egg on Microsoft's face.
(I'm sort of hoping that UEFI rootkits make such a mess of things that Microsoft is forced to backpedal on this idiotic "kernel-sized, under-tested, buggy firmware blob" idea)