I stopped working on Ubuntu because decisions were increasingly being made internally rather than anywhere that volunteer contributors could influence them. The "Click here to instantly break your mouse" thing was just the final straw. There's a component to the story that involves beer and a hilarious reply vs. reply all error on an iPhone, but I don't remember it being about anyone siding with Scott - there's a picture somewhere of me deactivating my Ubuntu membership a few minutes after sending https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2008-February/025141.html , which hardly gave them time to.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Wubi doesn't support UEFI. Once it does, it can use the same signed bootloader that Ubuntu currently uses.
I'm sorry, you're right - I was under the impression that overcommit_memory defaulted to permissive rather than heuristic allocation. However, overcommit_ratio is also ignored by default.
"Setup mode" is part of the UEFI specification. You can add any keys you want to while you're in it.
You can malloc() as much as you want until you run out of address space. That's 3GB on 32-bit systems, no matter how much RAM you have. Things will only go wrong if you attempt to use it for anything.
Removing the CMOS battery didn't recover this system, which is pretty much what I'd expect - UEFI variables are typically stored in the same hardware as the firmware itself, and unplugging batteries doesn't kill your firmware.
The system doesn't fail to boot. The system doesn't even complete its power-on self checks. The screen is never turned on. It never responds to keyboard input. It's bricked. This machine's not coming back to life without an SPI programmer.
Unfortunately not in this case.
30-day hassle-free return policy.
Yes, but Windows requires signed drivers.
Disabling secure boot means you can easily lie to the OS about whether or not secure boot is enabled.
If it were an anti-piracy measure then there wouldn't be a requirement for you to be able to disable it.
The kernel can execute ring 0 instructions. Your initrd can't. The difference is that you could construct an appropriately modified hibernation image that booted an arbitrary kernel - or even an entirely separate OS. In that scenario, your kernel is effectively a new bootloader, except unlike the signed bootloaders it'll happily boot an entirely unsigned OS. That's unlikely to end well.
But, conceptually, you're right. Secure Boot doesn't magically make a system secure, but it *is* a vital part of system security - if you can't trust your kernel, any other security you attempt to build is pretty much pointless.
You don't need an exploit or a kernel patch. You just need to replace the firmware's function pointer to GetVariable(), which is a thing you can do because you're running untrusted code in the firmware context. The OS has no way of knowing that you're doing that.
"The GetVariable() call returns a decryption key that the hardware calculated"
No it doesn't. It returns a 1 if the firmware claims to have booted securely, and a 0 if not. You're thinking of Measured Boot, not Secure Boot.
Please describe how Windows can accurately determine whether it was booted in Secure Boot mode or not. For an encore, describe how Trusted Computing can limit the code you can boot. As far as I know, single machine local attestation is an unsolved problem.