Red Hat Will Pay Microsoft To Get Past UEFI Restrictions

[Alan Cox]

On Thu, 31 May 2012 20:56:03 -0700
JD <jd1008 at gmail.com> wrote:

> FWIW, perhaps - just perhaps - this is an attempt by MS and redhat
> (and perhaps others like Oracle),
> to try an convince government customers that a system with a signed
> bootloader and kernel and modules, provides for such greater security,
> that the gov should spend the money to revamp all their installations.
> 
> Given the atmosphere we live in today (be it real or fabricated),
> and if my supposition re: the motive for a signed bootloader are true,
> then it seems the strategy might just work - and the colluding parties
> will get rich off of the taxpayers of course.

The bits of government that want this sort of stuff are the bits of
government who want to stop citizens having computers running arbitary
software not approved by the state, Cory Doctrow dubbed it "the war on
general purpose computing" and that is a very good summary of what it is
about at that level. Having the state able to meddle in what OS can be
run means law enforcement backdoors are much easier, state control of
crypto is possible and so on. To some in power that is their dream.

Now a signed bootloader has its uses, however in a properly designed
system you would allow the user to import their own keys.

DRM like this is all about monopoly power and hopefully it ends up with
the regulators and Microsoft being hauled back over the coals in the
European court.

I am sure MS will use this for the Windows 9 era to say "See secure boot
works for everyone, now make it mandatory". Matthew Garrett
unintentionally just gave them everything they needed to continue that
plan.

Alan