Microsoft Patches Windows To Eliminate Secure Boot Bypass Threat

Microsoft has patched a Windows vulnerability that allowed attackers to bypass Secure Boot, a critical defense against firmware infections, the company said. The flaw, tracked as CVE-2024-7344, affected Windows devices for at least seven months. Security researcher Martin Smolar discovered the vulnerability in a signed UEFI application within system recovery software from seven vendors, including Howyar.

The application, reloader.efi, circumvented standard security checks through a custom PE loader. Administrative attackers could exploit the vulnerability to install malicious firmware that persists even after disk reformatting. Microsoft revoked the application's digital signature, though the vulnerability's impact on Linux systems remains unclear.

“Secure Boot” yeah right

[Gavino]

The term “secure” in “secure boot” should probably also be revoked. This kind of stuff gives me zero confidence in what Microsoft have essentially forced on the industry. It seems to be about as secure as 64-bit WEP. I.e. not very.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

The ONLY thing secure boot secures is Microsoft another revenue stream. Nothing is proven about anything other than someone paid M$ to sign some code.

It is literally just cartel behavior.

Re:

[93 Escort Wagon]

Yeah, in all seriousness - I'm kind of flabbergasted by this. The fact that it's even possible for a Windows-based exploit to bypass "Secure Boot" tells us that Secure Boot is more or less a scam.

Re:

[Ol Olsoc]

Yeah, in all seriousness - I'm kind of flabbergasted by this. The fact that it's even possible for a Windows-based exploit to bypass "Secure Boot" tells us that Secure Boot is more or less a scam.

It's not a bug - it's a feature. How else are the bad guys going to get the access they need?

The example

[Ol Olsoc]

Of why Windows is inherently not secure. If the Standard OS, the largest installed User base, the utter need for users to work on anything other than Office 365....

Whose very claimed Secure boot is not at all secure.

It is difficult to have much sympathy for it's users who still use it after Secure boot is not secure. Such a weak system means that either the users and companies that continues to use windows are either brain dead, or do not care about security at all.

Enjoy getting Pwned,

Re:

[93 Escort Wagon]

Yeah, I've been (historically) jumping through all the extra hoops to keep Secure Boot enabled on our Linux servers and (especially) student workstations, taking the extra steps to get GPU drivers working with it, etc. etc. Now I'm wondering why I've bothered.

It seems to me that, at least on those machines where other people have physical access (and can log in), this exploit tells me Secure Boot isn't really making them any more secure.

If someone wants to argue the other way, I'll certainly be interested t

Re:

[Ol Olsoc]

Yeah, I've been (historically) jumping through all the extra hoops to keep Secure Boot enabled on our Linux servers and (especially) student workstations, taking the extra steps to get GPU drivers working with it, etc. etc. Now I'm wondering why I've bothered.

It seems to me that, at least on those machines where other people have physical access (and can log in), this exploit tells me Secure Boot isn't really making them any more secure.

If someone wants to argue the other way, I'll certainly be interested to listen.

And just imagine the other surprises Windows will serve us with. Some vulnerabilities can happen, sure. But this is pretty egregious.

When secure code goes rogue

[xack]

Sure you get a trusted flag with secure boot, but when the trusted code betrays you or gets backdoored you're screwed. Revoking the key only closes the barn door afterwards. Same with all DRM and notarized code.