▲ 253 ▼ Microsoft’s Secure Boot has been broken for a decade and no one noticed until now (www.welivesecurity.com) submitted 3 months ago by beep@piefed.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 56 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago (2 children) Yes. Is UEFI shim = secure boot? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 months ago* (1 child) No. Secure Boot is basically a 'lock', on the UEFI. UEFI - Shim is basically a 'lockpick'. UEFI is the first step in your computer booting, turning on. So, if Secure Boot is supposed to be a 'lock', that limits who can access the UEFI ... but it turns out that there are many, old, UEFI - Shims, that defeat that 'lock'... then Secure Boot is not a good 'lock'. I don't mean to be rude but it seems like there might be a bit of language confusion going on here... In English, a 'shim' is a kind of crude/simple tool that can be used to break or bypass some actual physical locks. So 'UEFI-Shim' basically means 'a thing that breaks into your UEFI'. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* I don't think there's a language barrier here. I'm fluent in English, and I know what a shim is, both IRL and in the software world. I've just not run into it in a boot loader context before. And I'm not really knowledgeable when it comes to secure boot, either. Just trying to understand. 🙂 Are you sure that's a good phrasing though, "that breaks into your UEFI"? A shim is usually something that you use to add or modify functionality by interception, right? Like a middle-ware, almost. So these old shims, are they responsible for functionality that directly has to do with Secure Boot, or something else? If so, they are broken — i.e. not fulfilling their purpose. If something else, they are not broken. They are just breaking something else, or making it vulnerable. Am I making sense? Does it not make sense? Because after all, I don't know much about the details of the subject matter. 😁 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 months ago* (1 child) No. Secure Boot is basically a 'lock', on the UEFI. UEFI - Shim is basically a 'lockpick'. UEFI is the first step in your computer booting, turning on. So, if Secure Boot is supposed to be a 'lock', that limits who can access the UEFI ... but it turns out that there are many, old, UEFI - Shims, that defeat that 'lock'... then Secure Boot is not a good 'lock'. I don't mean to be rude but it seems like there might be a bit of language confusion going on here... In English, a 'shim' is a kind of crude/simple tool that can be used to break or bypass some actual physical locks. So 'UEFI-Shim' basically means 'a thing that breaks into your UEFI'. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* I don't think there's a language barrier here. I'm fluent in English, and I know what a shim is, both IRL and in the software world. I've just not run into it in a boot loader context before. And I'm not really knowledgeable when it comes to secure boot, either. Just trying to understand. 🙂 Are you sure that's a good phrasing though, "that breaks into your UEFI"? A shim is usually something that you use to add or modify functionality by interception, right? Like a middle-ware, almost. So these old shims, are they responsible for functionality that directly has to do with Secure Boot, or something else? If so, they are broken — i.e. not fulfilling their purpose. If something else, they are not broken. They are just breaking something else, or making it vulnerable. Am I making sense? Does it not make sense? Because after all, I don't know much about the details of the subject matter. 😁 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* I don't think there's a language barrier here. I'm fluent in English, and I know what a shim is, both IRL and in the software world. I've just not run into it in a boot loader context before. And I'm not really knowledgeable when it comes to secure boot, either. Just trying to understand. 🙂 Are you sure that's a good phrasing though, "that breaks into your UEFI"? A shim is usually something that you use to add or modify functionality by interception, right? Like a middle-ware, almost. So these old shims, are they responsible for functionality that directly has to do with Secure Boot, or something else? If so, they are broken — i.e. not fulfilling their purpose. If something else, they are not broken. They are just breaking something else, or making it vulnerable. Am I making sense? Does it not make sense? Because after all, I don't know much about the details of the subject matter. 😁 permalink fedilink source parent