flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
![]() Goto page 1, 2 Next |
Author |
|
Alphonso 27 Feb 2012, 04:39
Quote: Microsoft declined to answer questions about the kill switch in Windows 8 other than to say it will only be able to remove or change applications downloaded through the new app store. Any software loaded from a flash drive, DVD, or directly from the Web will remain outside Microsoft’s control. Doesn't seem that big a deal. Have you tried 8 yet? From what I have seen so far I'm not sure that I'll be using the "app store" anyway. |
|||
![]() |
|
revolution 27 Feb 2012, 05:29
Alphonso wrote: Doesn't seem that big a deal. It is already bad enough with the introduction in Vista's of signed driver enforcement. This removes control from the user and places it in the hands of some USA corporation where the user has no say about what is allowed or not. I find it hard to justify turning over my trust to a faceless corporation that is only concerned about its own profit. If only Linux/Unix/BSD/whatever was in a position to be competitive I would switch immediately. But, alas, almost all of our customers and suppliers insist on using Windows only compatible programs, file formats and equipment. Not to say I blame our customers/suppliers, since MS is the only way that most of the things they want to do can be done. But once MS feel empowered enough to give themselves the right to meddle then I get concerned that this will only get worse in the future. FWIW: No, I haven't tried W8. I shall be avoiding it for as long as possible. Although I do expect I will eventually be forced to use it sometime in the future. ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
Alphonso 27 Feb 2012, 06:27
revolution wrote: It is already bad enough with the introduction in Vista's of signed driver enforcement. This removes control from the user and places it in the hands of some USA corporation where the user has no say about what is allowed or not. As for control, what would happen if the MS kernel certificate was revoked or any other software requiring chaining to a root CA. Maybe some people out there need big brother to protect them. Just a personal opinion, I'm not happy or unhappy, it's just the way it is. |
|||
![]() |
|
madmatt 27 Feb 2012, 12:40
revolution wrote: Are you happy about MS being able to delete and alter things on your system without your permission? We WILL be notified when they use this each and every time right? Quote: FWIW: No, I haven't tried W8. I shall be avoiding it for as long as possible. Although I do expect I will eventually be forced to use it sometime in the future. The interface looks awful; too simplistic and dumbed down. Doing anything more than content consumption or online shopping appears to be out of the sphere of the intended purpose. I agree, OS's seem to be designed for your average teenager (including ubuntu's latest), can we get back to OS's for adults! _________________ Gimme a sledge hammer! I'LL FIX IT! |
|||
![]() |
|
JohnFound 27 Feb 2012, 13:06
The only versions of Windows I ever used are Win95; Win98 and WinXP. I hope until I am forced to use Win8, the Reactos will be released at least in Beta.
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
shutdownall 27 Feb 2012, 23:10
revolution wrote: I'm not convinced this the the proper way to examine it. I get a bad feeling when companies feel they have a right to meddle with end user's equipment. Apple already does it, Amazon with the Kindle, Google with the Android and now MS want to get a piece of the Big-Brother-is-in-control pie. The article talks about restriction of that function to software loaded via the app store only. ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
revolution 27 Feb 2012, 23:27
That function should not exist at all, regardless of whatever restrictions they initially decide to impose on it.
|
|||
![]() |
|
Coty 28 Feb 2012, 01:54
shutdownall wrote: The article talks about restriction of that function to software loaded via the app store only. So, if I buy an app from there store, with my money, they can change it? But, If I pirate it I'm free to go? They say "Oh! it only goes this far!" But does it really? I mean, they now have a backdoor into my system, how much would it take for the to gain full control? |
|||
![]() |
|
Alphonso 28 Feb 2012, 03:41
lol,
http://www.theverge.com/2011/12/6/2616731/microsoft-windows-store-pricing-149-70-80-percent Is it really in their interest to delete the good stuff while taking a 20%-30% cut on the price of the applications? Seems to me this has the opportunity to make huge revenues for MS in which case it would be in their least interests to upset the users. ![]() madmatt wrote: I agree, OS's seem to be designed for your average teenager (including ubuntu's latest), can we get back to OS's for adults! ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
revolution 28 Feb 2012, 04:47
This is somewhat related:
Windows 8 ARM devices won't have the option to switch off Secure Boot So if you buy an ARM based device with W8 then forget about booting another OS, ever. It's W8 for life! Long live W8. ![]() So, it looks like just another company acting like Apple. I've never cared about Apple because they are so small in comparison, but once the dominant OS takes that stance then I get concerned that societal pressures will force so many (like myself) into either accepting it or going out of business. Lack of choice is not a good thing IMO. I've previously criticised Linux for having far too much choice, but having no choice at all is an even worse situation. |
|||
![]() |
|
Alphonso 28 Feb 2012, 05:56
Actually one of the things about W8 is that it uses a semi hibernate when shutting down so that booting next time is quicker than a full reboot however if you have a dual boot or boot manager for multiple OS's that can mean having to boot W8 first then restart to select a different OS.
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/242865/linux_foundation_secure_boot_need_not_be_a_problem.html Are there any other ARM OS's that can run on ARM hardware for W8? revolution wrote: while in reality it is more likely the first step to MS controlling everything you do with it. revolution wrote: I get concerned that societal pressures will force so many (like myself) into either accepting it or going out of business. revolution wrote: Lack of choice is not a good thing IMO. It is IMO going to be very difficult to change that unless MS slips up badly and loses more than say 50% share of the market. With MS IMO being $$$ orientated that could then possibly snowball into liquidation for them. Big losses, loss of jobs, pay cuts, programmers moving on... |
|||
![]() |
|
revolution 28 Feb 2012, 06:10
Alphonso wrote: Are there any other ARM OS's that can run on ARM hardware for W8? But any well funded hacker (like a government) could certainly get a signing key and do whatever they please with your hardware. |
|||
![]() |
|
Alphonso 28 Feb 2012, 06:21
I think if one is clever enough to write your own hobby OS then they are probably clever enough to remove the restriction from the BIOS. Of course sharing might be a problem.
Just my 2 cents. |
|||
![]() |
|
revolution 28 Feb 2012, 06:39
Alphonso wrote: I think if one is clever enough to write your own hobby OS then they are probably clever enough to remove the restriction from the BIOS. I'm not saying it is impossible, but it would require a lot of time and effort do discover the weakness (if there is one) and then be able to leverage that in some way to reverse engineer the public signing keys. Probably the easiest, and cheapest, way would be to simply bribe the holder of the keys to tell you what they are. |
|||
![]() |
|
Alphonso 28 Feb 2012, 08:07
Ah, okay. I'm not familiar with ARM as you have probably noticed but there did seem to be posts suggesting the OEM could provide enable/disable option for secure boot and MS suggesting it should not be made an option to the end user, just enabled. If there is a big demand for non Windows on ARM I would think the OEM's would be cutting their own throats by doing such a thing.
Is the ROM OTP or can you read/write it? If it were me I'd probably look at it from that side rather than messing with keys, i.e. allow non secure booting. |
|||
![]() |
|
revolution 28 Feb 2012, 08:44
Alphonso wrote: Is the ROM OTP or can you read/write it? If it were me I'd probably look at it from that side rather than messing with keys, i.e. allow non secure booting. The chip makers (not the OEMs) make different versions of their chips, GP and Secure. The GP chips are not secure (general purpose) and these chips MS would not qualify for use so that only leaves the Secure chips, and then it is up the the manufacturer if they allow some override procedure to place the chip into setup mode (or maybe even unsecure mode). If no such procedure exists then nothing* short of popping the lid and meddling with probes and things will allow you to boot unsigned code. *I suppose factoring the public key might also be a potential vector, and it is certainly the most useful if it can be achieved. But it is unlikely that would be possible with current mathematics knowledge. There would need to be some very major breakthroughs in theory to pull it off. |
|||
![]() |
|
shutdownall 28 Feb 2012, 16:39
revolution wrote:
I don't think that UEFI secure boot works like Microsoft want. Okay now they make requirements for their new OS and want to be secure boot as default on motherboards. So other OS won't be able to be installed on those motherboards without changing something (what the general user not want to nor does have know how for that). But till now there is no mainboard producer which supports Microsoft's requirements regarding secure boot. So the last word is not spoken in this film. Microsoft can want many things, if nobody supports it they can not do nothing than produce own Microsoft PC's. But this won't happen. revolution wrote:
This is not new and in the past Microsoft tried to benefit from their market position to distribute own browser, own media player and so on. But in fact in the EU they paid for their mistakes. I think since the beginning of the 90s they payed about 1 billion EUR, and fine is increasing in every case more and more. So if Microsoft really can convince pc producing companies to support their secure boot, they have to pay a significant high price for this. And EU commissars are watching about it. Be sure. ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
shutdownall 28 Feb 2012, 16:40
Coty wrote:
Every OS developper can have backdoors in his system and I am sure Microsoft has and had many many years before. So I think this is a fact and not a fiction. ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
revolution 28 Feb 2012, 21:53
shutdownall wrote:
|
|||
![]() |
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|
Copyright © 1999-2025, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on GitHub, YouTube.
Website powered by rwasa.