| 1 |
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:56:20 +0530 |
| 2 |
Nilesh Govindarajan <contact@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon 26 Sep 2011 08:51:17 PM IST, James Broadhead wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On 26 September 2011 16:01, Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> I don't know if you have seen this. Given that we're moving into |
| 7 |
> >> UEFI boot what are the workarounds to compensate for Microsoft's |
| 8 |
> >> efforts to exclude other operating systems from available hardware? |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > My opinion is that signed boot is probably on its way (despite not |
| 11 |
> > actually offering much in the way of security, as the Apple Battery |
| 12 |
> > hack has shown), and so we'll enter an era where you have the option |
| 13 |
> > between a fully-signed system (Windows 9 / OS XI or so) or a cracked |
| 14 |
> > boot, with little in the way of switching between the two, at least |
| 15 |
> > initially |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > I know which one I'd pick if it came down to it :) |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> And you really need not worry about it, some geek (Torvalds?) will |
| 20 |
> surely find out a way. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
As this is being touted a win8 feature (with win8 set for release |
| 24 |
sometime in 2012), I predict this will be defeated before the first |
| 25 |
win8 machine hits the stores -- just like product keys, slic, and wga. |
| 26 |
Also it's probably safe to predict this "secure boot" scheme will end up |
| 27 |
being another vector for windows malware. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
caveat utilitor |
Archives