Windows 8 To ARM Tablets: No Disabling Secure Boot For You!
Windows 8 To ARM Tablets: No Disabling Secure Boot For You!
Posted 01/16/2012 at 12:04pm
| by Brad Chacos
31
Comments
Print
Way back in September, a tech geek brouhaha flared up when Linux fans pointed out that if Microsoft required Windows 8 to ship with UEFI Secure Boot enabled, that could mean Linux distros might not be able to run on the hardware. Don’t worry, Microsoft said at the time; OEMs had the option to include an option that disabled Secure Boot. Things calmed down after that, but now, the debate has resurfaced: new guidelines require x86-based Windows 8 systems to include the ability to disable Secure Boot, but ARM-based systems specifically CANNOT be able to turn Secure Boot off.
Remember that back in September, Microsoft said that it “Does not mandate or control the settings on PC firmware that control or enable secured boot from any operating system other than Windows.” Apparently, Microsoft falls into the “Tablets aren’t PCs” camp, because Computerworld UK’s Glyn Moody found the following tidbit buried deep in the latest Windows 8 hardware requirements:
MANDATORY: Enable/Disable Secure Boot. On non-ARM systems, it is required to implement the ability to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup. A physically present user must be allowed to disable Secure Boot via firmware setup without possession of Pkpriv. Programmatic disabling of Secure Boot either during Boot Services or after exiting EFI Boot Services MUST NOT be possible. Disabling Secure MUST NOT be possible on ARM systems.
It's great that the ability to disable Secure Boot is being required for PCs, but if you want to dual-boot Android and Windows 8 on a tablet, it looks like you’ll want to skip an ARM-powered device. Now, to be fair, a lot of tablets have locked bootloaders and won’t let users play around with the OS. Is Microsoft wrong to lock down ARM tablets? Why do you think they’ve targeted ARM tablets specifically?
More like this
31
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
dstevens
January 27, 2012 at 8:50am
this is a strongarm move by the microsoft / intel / nvidia unholy trinity against its competitors, this should be illigal and considered a monopolizing move on microsofts part but watch the us govt assholes will let them go ahead and do it,
Holly Golightly
January 18, 2012 at 3:16am
Oh, this is super easy. Microsoft has a strong relationship with Intel. So to be anti-competitive, they sabotage Arm's ability to be a total equal to what Intel has to offer. Making Intel a much better option for people who prefer this freedom. WINtel from the 1990s is back to their old tricks again.
bhusebye
January 17, 2012 at 4:25pm
Microsoft wants to ARM wrestle. They are going to end up like that guy in the Stallone movie that got his freaking arm busted off. I dont want some Nazi tell me what I can do with my machines. If that is the only way they can secure their machines from now on I can go buy something else. Signed code? Freeware signed code? Signed Virus? Signed guitar by Pete Townshend I can smash over Bill Gates and Balmer's melon? Hell I will pay alot more for that then a tablet.
riopato
January 17, 2012 at 4:39am
Which supports what Microsoft has been saying for the past 5 years!
TABLETS AREN'T PC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GOD DAM IT!!!!!!!!!!
loozer
January 16, 2012 at 3:01pm
ARM win8 is wortless anyways. No desktop+no WINDOWS+no real multitasking=worse than apple.
Either way, Intel's new mobile chip push will make arm irrelevant in a few years anyways. It's a good thing that on x86 platforms, our linux rights are fully protected.
riopato
January 17, 2012 at 3:39am
Finally intel using this chip for what they originally intended
http://youtu.be/66VeS0_tAJM
Bullwinkle J Moose
January 16, 2012 at 2:45pm
I told you why but the propaganda perps here at Max PC just keep saying I wear a tinfoil hat or haven't taken my meds
Locked bootloaders were undergoing proof of concept at least as far back as the BTX motherboards and can easily be verified
An improper installation procedure of security software can trigger BTX boards to prevent you from ever booting to XP and Linux disks even if you have wiped the BIOS and even if you have removed the hard drive that was affected by this procedure
Anyone in this forum who doesn't verify what I've been telling you now for the past few years is a perp
Simply saying I'm wrong without verifying what I've said is all the proof you need that these cretins are perpetrating a fraud on the public
If you want to verify what I'm telling you, I'd be happy to provide all the evidence to Max PC staff and do a full review of this procedure I have described
but you don't want that now do you?
So how could a 2006 motherboard prevent ealier version of XP from being installed yet allowing later versions install correctly even though the later versions had not even be written yet?
Anyone not wanting to find out is a perp so ignore them and seek the answers if you really are a geek
ALL MICROSOFT OPERATING SYSTEMS AFTER XP-SP2 ARE NOTHING MORE THAN GOV'T SPONSORED SPYWARE PLATFORMS!
and yes I do have the proof
riopato
January 17, 2012 at 5:18am
BTX's demise was due to the form factor being rejected by manufacturers and DIYers. The locked bootloaders was one of the least of it issues. Stating that an "improper installation of security software...." is like saying "I'm such an idiot, I'm too stupid that I can't install security software properly" or "My pirated copy of windows stopped working now I need to pirate the new service pack one" so you need to blame Microsoft of some government conspiracy for your inconvenience. The fact that I'm responding to you makes me feel more mentally challenged than what you actually are! I have proof but I don't want to share it with you. You go and look up the proof yourself so I can use it against you later on!
Bullwinkle J Moose
January 16, 2012 at 3:25pm
Simply read all my past posts
Every time I show proof, these idiots just say I have no proof
They say this AFTER I show proof and yet they want the public to believe them without ever offering any proof of their own
They sound like a bunch of dirty Joo bastedz who need to die
A terrorist by any other name is still a terrorist
brentrad
January 16, 2012 at 4:31pm
Hey here's a thought. Have you ever considered that calling people "dirty Jew bastards who need to die" maybe isn't the best way to get people to seriously consider your point of view?
Bullwinkle J Moose
January 16, 2012 at 7:10pm
YES!
Yes I did!
When I was young and naive like you, I thought these people really wanted to learn the truth but then reality bitchslapped me upside the head and I got a clue
How about you?
thetechchild
January 16, 2012 at 11:13pm
People do want to learn the truth... you just obviously don't have it. Or at least, you have a really low patience and terrible communication skills.
Oh, that and you have crazy conspiracy theories that have no real evidence. If you had something that made any sense (think about this) at least SOMEBODY would have listened to you by now.
Bullwinkle J Moose
January 17, 2012 at 12:43am
Whoa
Loosen up that tinfoil hat a bit
Your cutting off the oxygen to your brain
Anytime Max propaganda staff wants to honestly cover the topic, they know how to reach me!
As for you, I've already told you that whenever I offer proof of spyware, these cretins simply resort to namecalling and refuse to reproduce the methodology required to validate my results, as you would have seen if you had read my past posts as I've already explained
Therefore, if namecalling is what you want, then I can play that game as well
If proof is what you want, then let Max Propaganda reproduce my results or prove me wrong
I have the entire step by step process detailed on video if they wish to prove me wrong
However, as I've already told you and you can verify it from my past posts, you nuttcases just keep telling me I have no proof after I show you the proof !
What a bunch of losers
riopato
January 17, 2012 at 5:32am
Yeah he is already explained it to you losers who don't think it that he is smart and not rattle on like some kind of retarded, neo nazi, incest baby. He has many proof that he could not copy and paste to proof him wrong because he no like perps in this perp town of max propaganda! He rather waste time trading insults and making up conspiracy theories instead of showing proof.
TechLarry
January 16, 2012 at 2:10pm
This should be none of Microsoft's busines dammit. As long as a person has a legalliy purchased copy of the OS, then MS should bug out.
Crap like this is what lands monopoly lawsuits against them, but they never learn.
riopato
January 17, 2012 at 4:21am
Why is it ok for Apple, Google, carriers and manufacturers to do this and Microsoft gets antitrust lawsuit threats for doing the same?
http://gizmodo.com/303171/apple-says-unlocked-iphones-will-brick-after-software-update-+-what-does-it-mean
http://www.phonesreview.co.uk/2010/10/06/t-mobile-g2-jailbreak-no-chance-as-android-auto-reinstall-kicks-in/
This article doesn't exactly say that Microsoft is doing this. It specifically states the requirements of Windows 8 running on a particular chipset. It's possible that Arm dictated these requirements or that this requirement was part of the negotiation with arm. It's also possible this requirement is a measure to protect Microsoft's IP. It's not like anyone can run to their local store and build their own arm based device from scratch and install the arm version of windows 8. If that's cause for a lawsuit then why no antitrust suits on Apple and Google? Were can I buy Android's rom or ios to install into an arm based device legally instead of jailbreaking or illegally stealing unlicensed roms! Who should sue who in this case?
Cregan89
January 16, 2012 at 1:39pm
It's important to realize that this means that only UNSIGNED code can't be flashed to Windows 8 ARM tablets. This requirement does not in any way prevent manufacturer's from building a signed version of Android that can dual-boot alongside Windows 8 on the same ARM hardware.
I'm not quite sure of the reasoning for this though. I doubt its low-level DRM hooking or pirating related since a DRM system is only as good as its weakest link, and since these same requirements aren't applied to x86/64 systems, DRM hacking will obviously just target these platforms. Its possible that security related. Maybe the underlying ARM architecture makes it less secure than x86/64 when used in a disabled Secure Boot mode. Or maybe there's compatibility issues with ARM if you change the state of Secure Boot on an already installed OS.
But I bet the reason is more related to pricing. I bet Microsoft is going to liscence ARM builds of Windows 8 at a discounted price or alongside significant rebates compared to the x86/64 build in order to make cheaper ARM based tablets more cost effective for manufacturers. And naturally, Microsoft doesn't want consumers to benefit from reduced hardware costs at Microsoft's expense if the customer isn't even going to use Windows 8 and buy into the Windows ecosystem. And honestly, I think that's perfectly fair.
riopato
January 17, 2012 at 4:35am
Agreed!
I don't think consumers won't even have a choice of being able to install or even purchase a copy of arm version of windows 8 without it already embedded inside the hardware.
If MS does offer it, (which will be surprising if they do)the requirement says nothing against installing windows 8 on an android based tablet! Or any arm based device already available in the current market.
aarcane
January 16, 2012 at 1:26pm
I'm definitely against this. Tablets, Smartphones, and other portable devices need to become open platforms, just like the PC is now, where we can pick our Operating System of Choice and go. Until then, they'll never achieve the same level of acceptance and utility.
riopato
January 17, 2012 at 4:40am
Which supports what Microsoft has been saying for the past 5 years!
TABLETS AREN'T PC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GOD DAM IT!!!!!!!!!!
Cy-Kill
January 16, 2012 at 12:25pm
Wouldn't this bring about an anti-trust lawsuit over monopolistic practices, I can't see this at all being legal?
big_montana
January 17, 2012 at 6:38am
Why would it, when Android locks it's boot loader? Plus this is much ado about nothing. Really, how much of the planet actually runs, or cares about, Linux?
compro01
January 17, 2012 at 7:25am
"android" locks "its" bootloader?
SOME android devices have locked bootloaders. It is not a requirement to run android, unlike this.
big_montana
January 17, 2012 at 11:12am
And like I said, it is much ado about NOTHING. The only ones who care are those who run Linux, and want to run it on ARM. I say purchase an ARM based Android tablet then. Also, let's not forget, Apple locks down iOS as well. Where is the outcry over that, and the protests being organized against Apple for doing something for years, that MS has yet to do.
Engelsstaub
January 17, 2012 at 4:48pm
"How much of the planet runs or cares about Linux?"
http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/09/despite-enterprise-dominance-microsoft-struggles-in-web-server-market.ars
...about 60% of servers worldwide. More than Windows. And Apple makes its own hardware. That's their business model and there's a hell of a lot of difference.
Microsoft does not make the hardware but presumes to tell people they can't boot Linux or extorts money from open-source vendors for licensing fees for undisclosed patents. ...because they can't yet compete or innovate in the mobile market. (Maybe Windows 8 will change that...)
j814wong
January 17, 2012 at 4:38pm
Locking hardware of software in any case is wrong but because of Microsoft domination in home computing, I suppose people are fearing they will extend their domination further. With Android, its not like Android wins hands down. They are still competing with iOS. But with Microsoft and Windows, Microsoft want to dominate the market completely or as clsoe as possible and people fear that. Instead of having competing systems together in one market, it is fear inspring when one system dominates all or most.
riopato
January 17, 2012 at 4:49am
Yeah! Bring on that lawsuit! So when they judge against Microsoft. We can finally have a rulling case to destroy Apple and Google's Android division for having done EXACTLY THE SAME THING FOR THE PAST 5 FUCKING YEARS!!!!
Cregan89
January 16, 2012 at 1:40pm
Monopolistic practices on a 0% market share hardware/OS platform?
riopato
January 17, 2012 at 4:43am
Are you refering that 0% to windows based tablets or windows in general?
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
The gang discusses the GTX 690, Trinity, Ivy Bridge, Amazon, big-box stores, MMOs,...
This month's issue
Feature
Build a PC On Any Budget
Feature
Cloud Services Showdown
How-To
Encrypt Your External Drive
Build It
Upgrade an X58 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Original RickRoll Video Returns to YouTube After 24-Hour Copyright Hiatus http://t.co/MaH9Sxyy2 days 6 hours ago
- maximumpc: Corsair has decided not to go forward with its $78 million IPO, citing weak equity market conditions http://t.co/A5a4DAzj2 days 6 hours ago
- maximumpc: Want to work at Maximum PC? Our Online Managing Editor, Alex, is moving away, so we need a new one. http://t.co/9Z7JCh0E4 days 4 hours ago
