Welcome to XDA

Search to go directly to your device's forum

Register an account

Unlock full posting privileges

Ask a question

No registration required
Post Reply

Windows 8 on x86 android devices?

OP mtmerrick

3rd May 2012, 08:58 AM   |  #31  
Rakeesh_j's Avatar
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 75
 
479 posts
Join Date:Joined: Jan 2010
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackhand1001

For x86 they made it mandatory that you must be able to disable it as well as add additional signatures.

When did they say you must be able to disable it? As far as I'm aware they only allow disabling it to be optional. And an OEM copy of windows will refuse to boot if it is disabled.
3rd May 2012, 05:28 PM   |  #32  
Senior Member
Flag Nis
Thanks Meter: 52
 
450 posts
Join Date:Joined: Mar 2012
More
Lol slow down settle with making xp/vista work

Sent from my epic Y
3rd May 2012, 07:46 PM   |  #33  
Recognized Contributor
Flag Glasgow
Thanks Meter: 450
 
2,786 posts
Join Date:Joined: Jul 2007
Donate to Me
More
Lets wait an see shall we, since RT is an OEM device only there is a good chance security will be higher on it, even more so if MS subsidisers some of the build cost to keep prices down, which I wouldnt rule out by the way! If they do that to keep prices low then they have every right to keep it locked down to them, of course it doesn't matter as the gods on here will fix it ;)

Sent from my HD2 using XDA Windows Phone 7 App
3rd May 2012, 10:23 PM   |  #34  
Rakeesh_j's Avatar
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 75
 
479 posts
Join Date:Joined: Jan 2010
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazza9075

Lets wait an see shall we, since RT is an OEM device only there is a good chance security will be higher on it, even more so if MS subsidisers some of the build cost to keep prices down, which I wouldnt rule out by the way! If they do that to keep prices low then they have every right to keep it locked down to them, of course it doesn't matter as the gods on here will fix it ;)

Sent from my HD2 using XDA Windows Phone 7 App

The problem with relying on exploits is that there's no guarantee you'll find an exploit. And even if you do, closing it is merely a patch away.
4th May 2012, 06:58 AM   |  #35  
Recognized Contributor
Flag Glasgow
Thanks Meter: 450
 
2,786 posts
Join Date:Joined: Jul 2007
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakeesh_j

The problem with relying on exploits is that there's no guarantee you'll find an exploit. And even if you do, closing it is merely a patch away.

Where there's a will there's a way, in my opinion I couldn't care less, I'll be getting an x86 tablet, I don't see the point in getting a tablet with with its balls chopped off so lock down isn't a big issue


Sent from my HD2 using XDA Windows Phone 7 App
4th May 2012, 06:59 AM   |  #36  
blackhand1001's Avatar
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 687
 
1,279 posts
Join Date:Joined: Sep 2011
Donate to Me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakeesh_j

When did they say you must be able to disable it? As far as I'm aware they only allow disabling it to be optional. And an OEM copy of windows will refuse to boot if it is disabled.

"20. MANDATORY: On non-ARM systems, the platform MUST implement the ability for a physically present user to select between two Secure Boot modes in firmware setup: "Custom" and "Standard". Custom Mode allows for more flexibility as specified in the following:

a) It shall be possible for a physically present user to use the Custom Mode firmware setup option to modify the contents of the Secure Boot signature databases and the PK.
b) If the user ends up deleting the PK then, upon exiting the Custom Mode firmware setup, the system will be operating in Setup Mode with Secure Boot turned off.
c) The firmware setup shall indicate if Secure Boot is turned on, and if it is operated in Standard or Custom Mode. The firmware setup must provide an option to return from Custom to Standard Mode which restores the factory defaults."
4th May 2012, 10:12 AM   |  #37  
Rakeesh_j's Avatar
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 75
 
479 posts
Join Date:Joined: Jan 2010
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazza9075

Where there's a will there's a way, in my opinion I couldn't care less, I'll be getting an x86 tablet, I don't see the point in getting a tablet with with its balls chopped off so lock down isn't a big issue

I've heard that argument before, as well as "if man can build it, man can unbuild it" but I've been in many hacking/development scenes where this has fallen apart. Ultimately yes, exploits always exist, because in theory you could just rebuild the whole thing from scratch without the forced signature checks. However the lengths you must go to achieve these exploits can become impractical to the point that people just give up and the development just quietly dies off.

The tivo scene is a big example of this. I used to be a very active member of the modding scene where we would run our own scripts on tivos to add features (for example, I was the very first person to transfer a recording from one tivo to another tivo, long before tivo themselves later added that feature.) However by the third generation it became necessary to do SMC rework just to run custom code. This slowed development on the S3 platform to a crawl, but it still existed to a degree.

In the S4 generation, the CPU itself actually checks for signatures, which then goes along down the chain of trust (bios > kernel > initrd etc.) I figured out a way around this, but the method requires building a daughterboard, and it's just not worth doing. There is no development going on at all for the S4 platform.

The same thing can happen with any platform.
Last edited by Rakeesh_j; 4th May 2012 at 10:26 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Rakeesh_j For This Useful Post: [ View ]
4th May 2012, 07:18 PM   |  #38  
Product F(RED)'s Avatar
Senior Member
Brooklyn, NY
Thanks Meter: 2,655
 
8,953 posts
Join Date:Joined: Sep 2010
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowEO

Agreed, but Microsoft has made UEFI security a mandatory requirement for Windows 8 ready devices (whether this can be disabled is up to the manufacturer though). Technically though, this isn't about bootloaders and more about UEFI firmwares which are (supposedly) the next generation replacements for a BIOS.

Hopefully we won't have to see this as too restricting (meaning hopefully manufacturers will give a way to disable this, which is not prohibited by the Microsoft Windows 8 Ready specification) and will continue to be able to use whatever OS we want with our Windows 8 Ready PCs.

How did we get on this topic anyway? I thought we we're contemplating the overhead of an x86 emulator on an ARM tablet..

Either way, it would take significantly more instructions to make up even a simple instruction that's found in an x86 processor, which would be pretty slow performance wise, not to mention very inefficient as opposed to porting applications to the ARM architecture.

Sent from my LS670 using XDA

That's funny. I have an ASUS M5A97 Mobo in my computer that does UEFI; it has a mouse and keyboard interface with a full GUI rather than traditional BIOS.

Post Reply Subscribe to Thread
Previous Thread Next Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes