[chewbranca]

The issue with that is the ability to disable secure boot is not included in the spec, and therefore is not required by any of the OEMs to include.

Edit: reply to comments on spec and disabling boot loading.

FYI, I haven't read the spec, and I based my statement from the other article on the home page: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/26/uefi_linux_lock_out_...

The relevant quote is: "Garrett said that Windows 8 certification requires that hardware ship with UEFI secure boot enabled. A feature allowing secure boot to be disabled – necessary to run Linux and FreeBSD on certified systems – is not required for certification."

And further: '"We've already been informed by hardware vendors that some hardware will not have this option," Garrett writes in a flow-up blog post to his original critique of the technology.'

[mjg59]

The ability to disable it is in the spec, but it's not required by the spec. Equally, the ability to override security decisions on a case by case basis is in the spec, but the Microsoft certification requirements forbid it.

[recoiledsnake]

Huh, what? The ability of disable secure boot IS in the spec, and it is included in the Samsung tablets that Microsoft got Samsung to make for their developers. How was it implemented if it's not in the spec.