Re: [OT] Re: the ghost of UEFI and Micr0$0ft
* On 2012 06 Jun 12:13 -0500, Tom H wrote:
> It's not irrelevant. Irrespective of Linux using or not using Secure
> Boot, I want Microsoft to take every measure the it can take to reduce
> the number of compromised Windows boxes and therefore reduce the
> number of attacks on my Linux boxes.
What is the predominant attack vector toward MS Windows? It's via the
network and then being able to compromise components of the OS and
machine, right? Access to the hardware means all bets are off, so to
really make things "secure" requires that there is no measure available
to disable secure boot.
But it's not necessary to install a differing version of the OS to cause
it to do unseemly things on the network, right? It seems to me that
tightening security all through the network stack and OS would have done
far more to improve the security situation for all concerned than this
wrong headed approach. This is akin to using an enima to acheive dental
hygeine.
I stand in full agreement with the FSF on this issue. Like Novell
paying MSFT patent fees, I think this move to fall in line with MSFT's
command by Fedora/Red Hat is selfish and potentially harmful to the
Free Software community. I don't follow debian-devel so I am not up to
speed on any Debian consensus on this issue as regards the DFSG and
Social Contract.
- Nate >>
--
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."
Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us
Reply to: