Linked by Howard Fosdick on Thu 6th Dec 2012 05:26 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 544544
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 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-01-28
ssokolow,
"You honestly expect motherboard manufacturers to obsessively release patches for every single motherboard they offer for the entire 5-10 year lifespan of the manufactured boards and not screw up getting them actually installed in the end users' PCs?"
The good ones will offer updates to older MBs retroactively, the others will only fix it going forward. Either way real defections seem unlikely.
"I seriously doubt motherboard manufacturers are prepared to handle reliably providing ongoing security fixes for what is essentially a small operating system."
There's a huge technical difference. A real OS has to be secure while running arbitrary user programs. With UEFI, you'll be hard pressed to find the opportunity to run your code in the first place because it's not authorized. So you might have to find an OS level vulnerability to get system access in order to exploit the UEFI vulnerability.
Although that's likely to happen eventually, it would become more useful to real hackers than users who just want to run linux. Once the windows vulnerability gets fixed, the UEFI one becomes inaccessible again.
Edited 2012-12-07 22:44 UTC