Dual Boot Not Trusted, Rejected By Vista SP1 525
Alsee writes "Welcome to our first real taste of Trusted Computing: With Vista Enterprise and Vista Ultimate, Service Pack 1 refuses to install on dual boot systems. Trusted Computing is one of the many things that got cut from Vista, but traces of it remain in BitLocker, and that is the problem. The Service Pack patch to your system will invalidate your Trust chain if you are not running the Microsoft-approved Microsoft-trusted boot loader, or if you make other similar unapproved modifications to your system.
The Trust chip (the TPM) will then refuse to give you your key to unlock your own hard drive. If you are not running BitLocker then a workaround is available: Switch back to Microsoft's Vista-only boot mode, install the Service Pack, then reapply your dual boot loader. If you are running BitLocker, or if Microsoft resumes implementing Trusted Computing, then you are S.O.L."
You can use the Vista boot loader (Score:1, Informative)
It's possible to use the Vista bootloader to chainload GRUB rather than the other way around (which is the default for most Linux installs.)
Yes, it's a pain to set up, but so is any dual-boot setup.
Re:But what if... (Score:1, Informative)
I have Vista SP1 installed on a machine that uses GRUB to dual boot into Kubuntu, so it appears to work fine on systems without a TPM.
Re:Except that... (Score:3, Informative)
And no TPM in the laptop.
That's the whole point of the problem, TPM has begun causing issues. You don't have TPM, so you are not affected.
Re:You can use the Vista boot loader (Score:1, Informative)
Yes, it's a pain to set up, but so is any dual-boot setup.
EasyBCD makes it rather easy, actually. The hardest part in dual-booting with Windows is partitioning -- the trick is to make sure there are some gap between the Windows partition and the Linux partitions, or even better, create all the partitions in Windows, and only change the type and initialize them from the Linux installer.
Otherwise, Windows and Linux sees different disk geometries, and if you're not careful you could end up with an overlap, with disastrous consequences.
Re:Only a problem if you have TPM? (Score:5, Informative)
Summary Needs Re-writing (Score:5, Informative)
This *may* be a corner case as most TPM's were shipped in the disabled state back when XP was still shipping.
Instead, how about testing the open source BIOS stack? Most of you have an unused box of recent vintage and I'm sure the projects can use the feedback.
FYI: An open sourced bios is an Achilles heel for Microsoft. Mobo OEM's will **jump** on a Free bios because it saves them money and elminating TPM saves them much more money.
Get involved!!
http://www.coreboot.org/Welcome_to_coreboot [coreboot.org]
http://openbios.info/Welcome_to_OpenBIOS [openbios.info]
Re:But what if... (Score:1, Informative)
Terrorizing the poor multi billion $ business of M$
Re:WTF is S.O.L.? (Score:4, Informative)
I thought it was: Shit Out of Luck
which is not in your list.
Re:Only a problem if you have TPM? (Score:5, Informative)
I have Vista Enterprise on a dual boot laptop with a TPM that I have never enabled. Installing SP1 did nothing adverse to the dual boot capability.
That's why I don't use Vista (Score:3, Informative)
I won't use it. I just bought a laptop on Ebay, brand new, out of box, that came with the Home edition, great bargain at $421. First thing I did with it was actually start it up and say "No" on the AUP acceptance page. I immediately powered it off, put in my trust Ubuntu Hardy 64-bit install cd, wiped the disk, and installed a real operating system that will stay the fuck out of my way.
Sorry, Microsoft, but I'd call this Epic Fail. Trusted computing causes me to lose control of *my* computer. Problem is, Microsoft don't understand the definition of computer ownership.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Who cares? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)
Two words: filesystem support.
Boot up Linux and all the stuff on your NTFS partition is read-only.
What? You know, Linux has had full NTFS Read/Write support for a while now, see :
http://www.linux-ntfs.org/ [linux-ntfs.org]
Also, ever heard about WUBI [wubi-installer.org] ?
jdb2
Re:You can use the Vista boot loader (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, our family laptop is Vista Ultimate and Ubuntu, set up this way, and took Vista SP1 without a hiccup. Have Vista's bootup load the linux GRUB bootloader.
Ubuntu's Wifi is much more reliable on the same hardware, but Ubuntu won't run Adobe CS3 properly.
Re:Who cares? (Score:2, Informative)
Not to mention it's fairly easy to get Windows to read ext2/3 partitions with the extfs driver.
Re:You can use the Vista boot loader (Score:5, Informative)
Just games? There are lots of people who run windows as their primary OS (because it's what they are used to after spending 15+ years on a MS platform, or maybe because there are apps they rely on that aren't available elsewhere), and they dual boot Linux because they want to be able to hack around, learn more, and generally have fun.
Taking an interest in Linux does not automatically mean somebody will abandon Windows the next morning.
Re:But what if... (Score:5, Informative)
Integrated TPM on newest Intel platforms. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Vista and Mac OS? (Score:5, Informative)
Intel Macs use EFI instead of a BIOS, and EFI uses GUID Partition Tables (GPT) instead of MBR.
The space that the MBR used to sit in is reserved in GPT, so when a legacy system reads, uses, or modifies the partition table, it only changes the old MBR partition table, which is not actually used to boot. In contrast, Boot Camp's dual-boot features only use the GPT, which means that as far as Vista knows, it IS the only boot loader involved.
Re:But what if... (Score:5, Informative)
Not at all....
Booting is handled by the EFI, and any operating system booted under the legacy BIOS emulation wouldn't be able to do a thing about it!
Re:And what if another Quicken fiasco? (Score:3, Informative)
Quicken's cock-up was that it was writing to parts of the MBR that DOS/Windows didn't use - but GRUB/LILO did. In this case, it would do the same thing, since it's unlikely that Vista has changed how such things work.
Microsoft's choice to 'intentionally not read Mac floppy disks' likely involves not having support for MFS/HFS, and not seeing any real need to reverse-engineer them to implement them.
Re:But what if... (Score:3, Informative)
The bug would be in the enforcement of the check when it does not apply, not in the very existence of it.
Do you agree that a full disk encryption product needs to protect the data from unauthorized access in every way possible?
If you agree to the above, do you assert that despite that, it should allow access to the data when the environment is verifiably NOT what it expects?
I'm not suggesting that the Windows boot loader is infallible (far from it), but it seems like you are suggesting that the FDE solution should continue on its merry way when it has detected an obvious deviation from the environment that it was designed to work in? We make sacrifices in usability and performance when we want to ensure that our data is safe. This disabling would obviously be purposeful. However, what I am saying is that if it is triggered when it does not apply (when FDE isn't enabled, for example), *THAT* is a bug.
Re:But what if... (Score:5, Informative)
BitLocker Probably Has To Be Enabled (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You can use the Vista boot loader (Score:5, Informative)
Date of article you reference: October 13, 2006
Date of KB935509 [microsoft.com] update which breaks this: January 7, 2008
Re:Not trusted for a reason (Score:3, Informative)
> Would not TrueCrypt be the better option?
It depends on what you need. This is an old and true as hell slogan - security as strong as the system's weakest element.
So for example it does not matter if you use the bestests the strongest the most sexy cryptographic algorithms for your Truecrypt installation if it is easy to get your keys from memory using other ways.
Such way would be for example *booting* the system into tiny supervisor.
This is fairly new concept of attack but it is possible as hell. All new VT technologies introduced sometime ago are now finding their way into consumer systems. Security researched warned about this since ca. 2003.
Now that MS is trying to think ahead and protect from such attacks it is Bad. But if they wouldn't it would also be Bad.
Re:You can use the Vista boot loader (Score:4, Informative)
Re:You can use the Vista boot loader (Score:2, Informative)
most people are content to leave it at that
First thing I did on the three systems I bought this last year was kill Vista and install XP. Yes it was from a pirate copy, but Microsoft has gotten their tax off me for THREE different systems so FUCK THEM. I am using a Microsoft OS. I am using one that is, in the words of Daft Punk, Harder Better Faster Stronger. (Okay, so the middle two are the most accurate.)
The big problem is the fact that despite providing XP drivers less than a year ago for these systems, now the various manufacturers basically say "Fuck you" if you ask them for help (some say it more politely than others) and leave you to sort it out yourselves. I got an HP laptop recently. Brand new. Had Vista on it. I tried it. After 20 minutes I was tearing my hair out with, among other things, the pathetic hand holding masquerading as security, so I dug out my XP disk.
It took me SIX HOURS to find drivers that had everything working. (And another few to refine driver versions to make stuff work WELL.) That's just the core stuff as well. Wireless, graphics, sound etc... Little things, like the fingerprint lock thing, I've never found drivers for. It is an absolute nightmare to get drivers for new systems these days, especially laptops. Basically you're relying on other peoples experiences, experimentation and message board postings to find stuff that works. You just have to hope that someone before you has gotten your model sorted.
Worst by FAR was the nVidia drivers for the graphics. Almost NONE work. Even hacked ones I found to support a wider variety of chipsets. (I must have had to reboot with the "use previous known good configuration" god knows how many times.) I must have tried 20 different sets of drivers before finding the one set that would actually work! (When I have issues with games now and folk immediately say "upgrade your graphics drivers" I just sit and weep in the corner muttering "the horror... the horror" quietly to myself.)
Hardly a surprise most people are content to leave it at that given "upgrading" to XP has been made so treacherous and complicated.
Re:Not trusted for a reason (Score:4, Informative)
Does TrueCrypt enforce a chain of trust down to the hardware?
I believe it does. You can load any OS you want or put the disk in another machine and still not be able to decrypt the "hidden" partition, even if you know of its existence.
You misunderstood the question. TPM and full disk encryption, used in this way, ensures that every piece of software from the bootloader on up is either considered trusted or not. It starts this chain of trust in the hardware, which is considered much harder to trojan than software (like the bootloader or OS.)
Put another way, TPM conceivably protects you from software keyloggers by verifying the signature of the bootloader, the OS loader, and the OS itself before allowing you to decrypt your data. If anything in the chain has been modified, it won't release the keys, thus protecting your data. Unless Truecrypt interfaces with TPM, merely knowing the key is enough to decrypt the data, regardless of the computer that you put the disk in. Truecrypt adds a layer of deniability, but that's not the same thing.
Re:You can use the Vista boot loader (Score:5, Informative)
Windows allows multi-OS booting; yes, even Vista allows it. You just have to know how to do it; just like any dual boot scenario.
False. Your solution requires hackery, while many Linux distros together with most things except Vista takes care of setting up dual-boot during the installation process.
Re:Not trusted for a reason (Score:5, Informative)
No, they do. I think a lot of people here misunderstand what TPM is meant to actually do and what it's supposed to be good for; and what it is useless for. (Frankly, I'm not sure Microsoft fully understood.)
It's because the MBR has *changed* that means the chain isn't signed with something that will allow the system state register to authenticate with the TPM key storage; the register contents will have changed because the SHA-1 fingerprints changed, so you're not going to be able to get a coherent response from the TPM regarding any keys you've stored in it if you've taken ownership already. Without resetting the token and destroying the keys, that is.
You want another way of doing this? Don't take ownership of the TPM to store the keys, but put 'em on a thumbdrive and use a secure passphrase (10 word Diceware, for example) to unlock them; this is also a supported mode of operation under BitLocker (assuming you trust the Elephant diffuser as being part of a reasonable cipher mode; frankly, I'm not that happy with it and prefer OCB or XTS modes, or failing that Linux's aes-cbc-essiv:sha256)... doing it the "thumbdrive way" is highly recommended when a TPM isn't available or wanted. Putting the hard disk encryption keys in the TPM isn't necessarily a good idea; they are recoverable given some effort, and that's not really what the TPM tech is for.
This is all entirely by design; it's closing an actual security hole whereby a trojaned MBR could capture your encryption keys. Obviously this is unsuitable for any dual-booting setup. TPM just isn't designed to work with that kind of scenario; it's really more of a system for verifying extremely stable system images such as you might find on a server or tightly-controlled corporate workstation that you want to be able to have a reasonable degree of confidence hasn't had the MBR tampered with because it's a trusted client that handles classified data (and any tampering with the software whatsoever would decertify it).
You control the chain of trust when you take ownership of the TPM; they do work just fine with Linux, and Linux does have support for them - if you want to know and prove to another system that the bootloader, BIOS, and kernel haven't changed since the state you knew was good, you can do that (although the proof is only as good as the integrity of the TPM).
They're just hardware tokens coupled with a signed BIOS/bootloader/kernel, really. Handling the actual key management that results from that, or what you do with it, is entirely up to you.
Vista using the TPM for BitLocker is hardly plug-and-play, and quite unsuitable for many scenarios (many TPMs out there don't even support TCG1.2); there's always TrueCrypt or PGP Whole Disk Encryption or one of the many other solutions available if you want a little more flexibility and control.
In particular, it's not really about DRM. None of the DRM systems proposed or deployed have ever used it, or are likely to ever use any part of it, as a key storage blackbox, because an entirely homogeneous image just isn't something you can guarantee on any consumer box (that's one reason it's not even on or in the vast majority of OEM and consumer motherboards/chips). It's perhaps a bit more practical for laptops...
Also, TPM implementations are quite breakable where the attacker has physical access and ownership of the machine and plenty of time. PCs aren't even consoles, and look what we've done to those...
It's meant to be one interlocking part of a whole enterprise security solution. It sure as heck isn't a "magic crypto chip" that will lock up your PC, and it shares none of the common criteria with DRM scenarios (which are, of course, just as doomed if they use a hardware blackbox as if they use a software blackbox, because the plaintext is always available...). In fact, having a TPM around if you're running Linux, will at least make sure you always have a secure entropy source for /dev/random...
Re:But what if... (Score:4, Informative)
It's kind of a huge karma circleje-..dependency.
Re:But what if... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But what if... (Score:5, Informative)
Informative gives Karma but Funny doesn't. Therefore, people who appreciate the post and wish to give the user some karma will choose Informative.
What I don't understand is why anyone would care... Slashdot Karma is competing with Kool-Aid Fun Points for score that has the least impact on my life.
Re:But what if... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:But what if... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But what if... (Score:0, Informative)
" Thou shalt devote thyself wholeheartedly to evil or to the good".
Re:But what if... (Score:4, Informative)
It's because what people are really saying is +1 satire./P
Re:But what if... (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, well heh, I think modding someone funny for being funny is nice enough for a little o' that real life karma. :)
Re:But what if... (Score:5, Informative)
So "informative" is the new "funny"?
Damn!
Re:why can i do it? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:But what if... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Only a problem if you have TPM? (Score:4, Informative)
I have Vista Enterprise in a dual-boot laptop with TPM and grub as the primary boot loader, and SP1 installed without any problems at all, and never altered the boot loader. It's 64-bit Vista, which is typically even more stringent with the code checks than 32-bit.
Were Microsoft not attaching it to a KB article, I'd have called it FUD, but I will say that I have not experienced it at all.
Re:Only a problem if you have TPM? (Score:5, Informative)
http://port25.technet.com/archive/2006/10/13/Using-Vista_2700_s-Boot-Manager-to-Boot-Linux-and-Dual-Booting-with-BitLocker-Protection-with-TPM-Support.aspx [technet.com]
Re:But what if... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:How is this news? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But what if... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Vista and Mac OS? (Score:4, Informative)
Respectively... No. Yes. No. Maybe.
How many businesses dual boot? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But what if... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But what if... (Score:4, Informative)
Dear sir, if you find my posts funny, please mark them funny so that I know you got the joke and don't think you got confused and took me serious.
I don't give a fuck about karma. Anyone willing to make the effort can have theirs pegged at the cap if they wanted, anyway. (Karma whores don't deserve it, and those that don't care about karma and just post things that are interesting and informative are always at the cap anyway.)
No problems here... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Summary Needs Re-writing (Score:4, Informative)
This *may* be a corner case as most TPM's were shipped in the disabled state back when XP was still shipping.
I wrote the summary.
Service Pack 1 refuses to install, even if you are not running BitLocker.
Service Pack 1 refuses to install, even if the TPM is in a disabled state.
Service Pack 1 refuses to install, even if you you do not have a TPM.
If you are running a Windows version with support for the Trust system at all - currently Vista Enterprise and Vista Ultimate - then the service pack sees the install is going to invalidate the Trust chain, will cause the lock you out of and and all keys of this sort. Not merely your BitLocker keys, but your keys to any other existing or future software which activates this Trust system. Right now that pretty much just means BitLocker - but applying the service pack can and will result in the Trust chip nuking any and all software built on this Trusted system.
Trusted Computing was intended to be a fully implemented "feature" of Vista, but dropped in the massive feature cuts. If/when Microsoft resumes and fully implements that plan in Windows 7 or whatever, then there isn't much possibility for any workaround. You won't be able to install/run service packs at all, you won't be able to install/run core elements of the operating systems at all, if you have any such unapproved modifications. If Trusted Computing is implemented as they planned, it becomes a strict either-or situation. Either you run an unmodified Trusted Windows install exactly as Microsoft dictates and locked in Microsoft handcuffs, or you can run what you like while absolutely you are locked out of Windows and locked out of any of your own data secured under the Windows Trust system.
-
Worked for me.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How is this news? (Score:5, Informative)
First, note that Iam the story submitter.
Second, and more important, note that I am a programmer and have I read the Trusted Platform Module technical specification from cover to cover. The 332 page technical spec.
The goal is to allow you to trust that your computer has not been compromised by a third party
Demonstrably incorrect. That is NOT the fundamental design criteria of the Trust chip.
You could get all of that functionality from a virtually identical design that did not secure the computer AGAINST the owner. If you are up for the technical details, you could for example have an identical chip with identical capabilities, except that you permit the owner to get a printed copy of his PrivEK when he buys the system. That alone would be minimally sufficient to grant the owner ultimate control of his system, but for technical reasons the chip should also have the capability to export the RootStorageKey encrypted to the PrivEK, as this makes things massively simpler benefiting security.
I forget the page number, but at one point somewhere in the latter half, the technical spec EXPLICITLY refers to the the owner as an "attacker". The specification explicitly details the measures that must be taken to secure the system AGAINST THE OWNER.
AGAINST
THE
OWNER.
Q.E.D. The fact that the technical specification for the chip repeatedly places the HIGHEST PRIORITY of forbidding the owner to ever obtain his own key (which would provide him ultimate control of his own computer) demonstrates that in fact the purpose of the design is to secure the computer against the owner. As the grandparent put it:
Trusted computing is all about allowing vendors like microsoft to trust the computer to work in thier partners interests rather than the users.
Of course, if you pour concrete over my house and take other insane measures to lock me out of my own home, yeah.... that does also incidentally have the effect of keeping other people out of my home too. The point here is that the owner is denied the key to his own house. Trying to advertise that as a security system securing the home FOR the owner is obviously a comically bogus argument.
-
Re:Affects crack? (Score:3, Informative)
I believe the whole point of the TPM chip is that it performs the checking before we gain control.
If the checks pass, the TPM key is then "available" for that boot.
If the checks fail, the TPM key is locked away.
I wholeheartedly agree with the "why would you want to run Vista" comment though!
For me, the only reason is PC gaming, but manufacturer support is currently still good for XP, and the DX9 vs DX10 difference is small.
Come DX11, things may change, but that's ages away.
Re:But what if... (Score:3, Informative)
People who appreciate the post and don't really understand the rating system, that is. The correct way to deal with this is to rate the post "Underrated". This gives the poster karma without hanging any new (and inappropriate) tag on the post.
Re:But what if... (Score:5, Informative)
Uh. Mods are now definitely literally on crack. Not behaving in an incomprehensible and unpredictable manner, they are putting the pipe to their lips and inhaling the smoke from burning crack cocaine.
Name a better way to spend a Thursday morning with mod points in your account!
Re:But what if... (Score:4, Informative)
I've also suspected this is possible a number of times. Companies like Sony, for example, have been shown up for using such tactics as Gorilla Marketing, to get their message across and employing bloggers to appear to be independent reviewers, when in fact they are working as part of an organized PR campaign So its well within the concepts of Gorilla Marketing style behavior to work to manipulate popular forum discussions. I wouldn't be at all surprised if many big companies and even some governments could be playing these same disinformation style games. Its interesting how manipulations to the Wikipedia have been detected and proven to be occurring. Forum style discussions need some way to detect organized disinformation/manipulation campaigns, but that's not going to be so easy to detect, but over time, at least more people are becoming aware of these disinformation games.
Re:But what if... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Vista and Mac OS? (Score:3, Informative)
Is EFI planned to replace BIOS in the non-mac world?
If you ask Intel, yes. If you ask the rest of the world, meh. I don't think anyone would argue that BIOS should stay, it's a crusty old POS that's been hacked on top of hacks over the years to keep supporting new things, but what should replace it is very debatable.
Can Linux bootloaders and whatnot play nicely with EFI?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/elilo/ [sourceforge.net]
http://refit.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
The former is a Linux-focused bootloader for all EFI platforms, rEFIt is a generic loader built with Intel Macs in mind. I have no idea if it can run on other EFI platforms.
Heck, can Windows?
Yes and no. Windows has had an EFI loader for a few years now, as it's required for Itanium. That was finally brought to normal processors with Server 2008 and Vista SP1, x64 only. So if you're 32 bit or running anything but the latest versions of Windows, you're stuck with the BIOS.
If so, can one even BUY a motherboard that uses EFI? As I'm planning to build a system on which I can (hopefully) run both windows and linux, I'd like to try to avoid the whole MBR shenanigans.
It seems MSI is shipping a MB they call "EFINITY" and a few OEMs supposedly have started using EFI on their custom boards, but in the non-Mac x86 world it's still pretty rare.
Multiboot does not break "trust" (Score:3, Informative)
I'm failing to see why this is a big deal. Software is in place to check for a piece of third party code intercepting your encryption key... It successfully detects GRUB as such software, and stops. So what?
This is a flaw of the trusted computing architecture. If the partition of the trusted OS (Vista) is encrypted, Multiboot does not break trust, because the other OS cannot decrypt the partition. But in trusted computing, if an untrusted bootloader loads a trusted OS the chain of trust is broken.
If trusted computing were designed with the user's interest in mind, the user would be able to decide that the bootloader he is using (grub) is trusted, sign it with a key which enables that bootloader only on his computer, and get on with his life. But now we have to wait for Microsoft to implement and sign a real bootloader... good luck with that.