this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2026

256 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

technology@lemmy.world

88,074 readers

15,540 active

2,788 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago

moderators

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

Microsoft’s Secure Boot has been broken for a decade and no one noticed until now (www.welivesecurity.com)

submitted 2 months ago by beep@piefed.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

63 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/tech/p/1263218/microsofts-secure-boot-has-been-broken-for-a-decade-and-no-one-noticed-until-now

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Kongar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 127 points 2 months ago (34 children)

Unpopular opinion but I’m dying on this hill. Secure boot creates more problems than it solves.

hideshow 34 child comments

[–] JiveTurkey@lemmy.world 82 points 2 months ago (19 children)

I'd argue this is actually a popular opinion. IMO secureboot has just become a way for Microsoft to leverage it's position and keep a strangle hold on industries they have no business being in.

The whole kernel level anti-cheat on win11 bullshit in the gaming industry is a good example. Essentially locking games to its platform and willing to sacrifice security to do so at our expense.

parent

hideshow 19 child comments

[–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 2 months ago (14 children)

This is especially true on computers where it is impossible to change the signing keys. Smartphones, game consoles, many laptops, some desktops, smart TVs, IoT devices, modern cars, etc.

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[+] RiverFox7@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (13 children)

[deleted]

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 2 months ago (12 children)

Kind of. You can change the signing key for the operating system, but you cannot change the signing key of the primary bootloader, as that is baked into the SoC.

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 4 points 2 months ago (10 children)

I'm assuming this is why it will forever "warn" me that my phone is running an "insecure" OS?

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 months ago (9 children)

That's moreso because it's using an unofficial key, so the device manufacturer (Google in the case of Pixels) cannot verify the authenticity of the OS you're running.

If you were able to replace that bootloader with a custom one, then you would be able to disable that message or just use a completely different bootloader like UBoot or EDK2 if it was ported, though.

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 1 point 2 months ago (8 children)

Functionally, though, wouldn't it be the same as replacing the computer's SecureBoot bootloader, since it's Microsoft (in the case of SecureBoot) that doesn't like the unofficial key that Linux installs? Shouldn't the user be allowed to add or remove any key they desire from the allow list of official keys (maybe have some sort of decentralized verification system, if they user decides they want to verify it)?

I'm more thinking out loud here, trying to understand.

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago (7 children)

The difference is that with ARM TrustZone, there is an efuse burned with the key that the manufacturer set in the SoC itself that checks the signature of the primary bootloader, which cannot be modified.

Standard computers do not have such a hardware-level key, so if you wanted to replace the bootloader with something like coreboot if it has been ported to your board, then you can. On smartphones, you do not have that option.

Same thing goes for even more locked down systems like game consoles.

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 1 point 2 months ago (6 children)

Ah, that makes a lot more sense!

Is there no way to clear that memory? Or is it more just that it's uncommonly difficult that the people with the skillset just do other, more value added things?

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago* (5 children)

It's not memory, but rather physical fuses that have been blown on the die itself, similar to the Xbox 360's downgrade protection fuses and CPU key. Much like the Xbox 360, the only way to bypass it would be to do something like a reset glitch hack to glitch the state of the CPU right as it tries to read the state of the fuses and bypass that check, and that would require a specific modchip for every individual device. Another option would be to replace the SoC with one that does not have that protection enabled to begin with.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I was unaware of this. Super interesting, and disturbing honesty.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Yeah. Best to look out for devices that don't have this restriction. Not 100% sure if the Fairphone and Shiftphone have this, but I'm sure if you ask them, they'll tell you.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it 1 point 2 months ago* (2 children)

I think the nothing phone does not have it, at least, i doubt because their bootloader is not locked IIRC

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

Having an unlockable bootloader is a separate thing from being able to replace the primary bootloader entirely.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it 1 point 2 months ago

My bad, i misunderstood

parent

[+] RiverFox7@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

[deleted]

parent

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Only in tech circles, it says secure and that's enough for most people.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 21 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Outside of tech circles most people think secure boot looks something like this

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] skaffi@infosec.pub 2 points 2 months ago

You think that's a safety boot you've got there? It's anything but! It is clearly the bottommost part of a certain powered hazmat suit - why, it's a Hazard Boot! You'll need to ask one of the egg heads whether Secure Boot is a part of its boot sequence, though.

Poor Gordon Freeman, running around out there somewhere, with just one Hazard Boot. I guess you'll find that his other leg is running with Insecure Foot, then.

parent

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago

Fantastic 😂 ! Thanks for the laugh.

parent

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 18 points 2 months ago

That's like saying windows 11 doesn't need tpm chips, an extremely popular opinion

parent

[–] agelord@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago

That's a very popular opinion.

parent

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Was it ever popular?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 child)

Popular is the wrong question, the correct question is, how many machines is this default on.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] incompetent@programming.dev 1 point 2 months ago

And, how many people switch to something other than the default? Most W11 users are just going to go with whatever the computer says it's doing without changing anything. They're either ignorant of the options available, or scared of breaking something if they make a change.

parent

[+] Fizz@lemmy.nz -11 points 2 months ago (8 children)

What problem does it create? Its a good tech and we absolutely should be cryptographically verifying the boot process to ensure it hasnt been tampered with.

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] Zarobi@aussie.zone 47 points 2 months ago (7 children)

Because it's proprietary and in 99% of cases actually means "Windows Boot", and isn't very compatible with other OS. Windows is basically in charge of the entire technology and doesn't have a history of being friendly to other OS.

For a while Linux was completely blocked by this setting, which was yet another technical barrier to getting into Linux because you had to fuck around in your scary UEFI settings otherwise your PC would be soft-bricked after installing Linux. Nowadays it's slightly supported by some distributions but Microsoft could of course change it at any time.

Further reading: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UEFI/SecureBoot

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago (6 children)

The way it should work is that during the OS install the OS can ask to have a cert added to the keystore at which point UEFI pops up a screen that says something like:

An application has requested to add a new certificate to secure boot which will allow new software to run at boot up. This usually happens when installing or updating an OS. If you would like to allow this press and hold <5 randomly selected letters> on the keyboard for 5 seconds. If you don't want to allow this press and hold escape for 3 seconds.

This would at least be a vendor agnostic way of enrolling certificates instead of the MS certificate just always being pre-installed. It should also of course be publicly documented exactly how the process works so everyone can use it.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] addie@feddit.uk 8 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Problem being, of course, that you can add more certificates, but you can't revoke the original M$ one. And since it's vulnerable and you can't get rid, then these exploits still work and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 2 months ago*

Computers shouldn't come with Microsoft keys preinstalled to begin with (or an operating system for that matter). Microsoft being able to have Windows preinstalled on the vast majority of non-Apple PCs is how they gained their monopoly in the first place.

parent

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

You should be able to remove any or all the certs as well, although I could see an argument for requiring you to enter the BIOS to do that.

parent

[–] cmhe@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

On some systems you can clear all secure boot keys, including Microsoft's, then provision your own and sign your bootloader or kernel with it. Windows cannot boot from such systems.

parent

[–] exu@feditown.com 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

Universal Blue distros do that. For some reason you need to enter a password though.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] cmhe@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago*

This is the MOK (Machine Owner Key), which is part of the shim bootloader, not UEFI secure boot.

The shim bootloader is signed by Microsoft UEFI secure boot keys, so Microsoft is the root of trust there.

On some systems you can delete all Secure Boot keys, and provision your own, then you don't need the shim bootloader and can sign your own bootloader or Linux kernel directly. Windows would not be able to boot on those systems.

parent