The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

Microsoft dragging its feet on Linux Secure Boot fix

Linux Foundation's workaround held up by roadblocks

Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Backup/Recovery

The Linux Foundation's promised workaround that will allow Linux to boot on Windows 8 PCs has yet to clear Microsoft's code certification process, although the exact reason for the hold-up remains unclear.

As The Reg reported previously, the Secure Boot feature of the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI) found on modern Windows 8 PCs will only allow an OS to boot if its code has been digitally signed with a key obtained from Microsoft.

That's a problem for many Linux distributions, because some lack the resources to purchase a Microsoft key, while others simply refuse to.

To help get around UEFI's restrictions, the Linux Foundation has been developing a signed "pre-bootloader" as a stop-gap measure that will allow Linux distributions to boot, until such time as open source developers can come up with more effective solutions.

For that plan to work, however, the Linux Foundation must first obtain a binary executable of the pre-bootloader that has been properly signed using a Microsoft-supplied key. According to a blog post by the Foundation's James Bottomley, that's proving to be easier said than done.

Each time he has tried to upload the pre-bootloader code to Microsoft's servers to have it signed, Bottomley says, the procedure has failed, and he's not entirely sure why. Emails to Microsoft support haven't yielded much insight.

As near as Bottomley can tell, there's a problem with the key he has been trying to use to sign the software, but the most he's heard from Microsoft has been, "Don't use that file that is incorrectly signed. I will get back to you."

This latest glitch isn't the first roadblock the Linux Foundation's pre-bootloader project has had to circumvent, either. As Bottomley explains, Microsoft hasn't exactly been making it easy for open source projects to access its UEFI tools.

In addition to purchasing a digital key through Verisign, the Linux Foundation had to create a Microsoft sysdev account, which itself involves digitally signing an executable using tools running on a specific Windows platform (though Bottomley was able to find a workaround).

Next, paper contracts had to be signed. What Microsoft sent over passed muster with the Linux Foundation's lawyers, but Bottomley says the "onerous" terms might not be to some developers' liking. For one thing, Microsoft's code-signing procedures exclude software licensed under a whole range of open source licenses; GPLv3, in particular.

Then there was the problem that the entire process of uploading code to be signed assumes developers are running Windows and using Windows-based tools. Even the file upload window required Sliverlight, which ultimately meant there was no way for Bottomley to submit the Linux Foundation's pre-bootloader without loading up Windows 7 in a virtual machine.

Only after Bottomley had completed all of these steps was he able to find out that the code-signing process didn't seem to be working. As of Tuesday, he was still at an impasse.

Microsoft has previously denied that Secure Boot is designed to lock Linux out from Windows 8 PCs, but the open source community's ongoing difficulties with UEFI have led many to doubt that claim. The Linux Foundation's latest woes are only likely to add fuel to the speculation.

"We're still waiting for Microsoft to give the Linux Foundation a validly signed pre-bootloader," Bottomley writes. "When that happens, it will get uploaded to the Linux Foundation website for all to use." ®

Magic Quadrant for Enterprise Backup/Recovery

Except that a large enough corporation will employ someone incompetent to do a job that they don't want to be done competently.

41
3
Anonymous Coward

Well I'd be tempted to agree with you (hence the upvote). But really, this stinks too much of dominant position abuse for it to be mere incompetence. Maybe I'm too paranoid?

29
1
Anonymous Coward

I don't understand, why do the keys come from microsoft and not a universally supported third party that doesn't make operating systems?

How is it remotely legal for this to be allowed to happen?

28
0

More from The Register

SCO vs. IBM battle resumes over ownership of Unix
Zombie lawsuit back and wants to suck the brains out of Linux
Bjarne Again: Hallelujah for C++
Plus: Now officially OK to admit you never used STL algorithms
Interwebs taunt Sir Jony over Apple eye candy makeover
Hey Ive, Ive... add more unicorns, willya?
Apple: iOS7 dayglo Barbie makeover is UNFINISHED - report
Plus: You don't like the icons? Blame marketing
Red Hat to ditch MySQL for MariaDB in RHEL 7
So long, Oracle! Don't let the door hit you on the way out
Shy? Socially inadequate? Fiddling with your phone could help
App 'tells the brutal truth' about social inadequates' chatup lines
Java EE 7 melds HTML5 with enterprise apps
New release arrives with GlassFish, NetBeans support
 breaking news
'Office Facebook' firm Tibbr wants you to PAY for mobe-meetings app
Great idea. Punters won't cough for it though
 breaking news
The only Waze is Google: Ad giant tipped to gobble map app 'for $1.3bn'
Pac-Man-satnav-ish upstart in bidding war with Apple, Facebook
 breaking news
PM Cameron calls for modern, programmable computers! (We think)
IT education musings to G8 chiefs to mystify IT industry