On Jun 22, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Mark Woodward wrote:
> In principal I have no problem with a secure boot system, as long as I have
> control over what *I* allow to boot.
My understanding is Microsoft's x86 spec for machines certified to run their
newer OS versions _requires_ (not optional) manufacturers to provide a
"custom" mode that provides just this. Windows RT ARM devices (e.g. tablets)
are more troublesome because they will not have an option to disable secure
boot or allow for user-created signing keys. There may be "unlocked" devices
for sale (e.g. Android tablets), but that remains to be seen.
On top of this, becoming part of Microsoft's signing service at the moment is a
matter of plunking down $100. At that point you can sign as many pre-boot
executables (x86) as you want.
> If this roles out and is sufficiently troublesome to freedom, do you think we
> can sue?
Probably worthwhile getting full details first. This is not my area of
expertise, but I do know there is a bit more nuance to the subject than is
sometimes discussed.
-- dNb
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
