Huh? Why are you mentioning a specific board? I'm talking about a *possible future feature* that we should all let Intel know we want. Because we are all well into modifying our UEFI for performance tweaks.
Nice idea, but I doubt it would work. 1) Think why we want to do it 2) They must be pretty keen the BIOS is never modified it by digitally signing it. 3) By supporting BIOS mods, even in this roundabout way their customer service/support team would tear their hair out, and all and sundry would try and RMA their boards when they screw up, irrespective of the warnings they have agreed to. 4) Think again why we want to do it Andy
OS Excesive costs Have 7 mcahines at home and in particular in Australia I AM NOT PAYING 500 Aussie dollard per WIN y Ultimate. It is a BLOODY ROBBERY !
For points 1 & 4: Well DUH, that's why I said to pretend that people mod BIOSs for "performance tweaking". They do, and some people want to replace their BIOS with an open-source alternative. 3: They wouldn't "tear their hair out". People already mod BIOSs, I doubt that many people actually try and RMA. Okay, this might be a valid point, but I still think if Intel believes that they are excluding people from the market, they will consider it. I mean, they are in it to make themselves money, not to make MS money! 2: Presumably, it's to prevent viruses and whatnot infecting the more OS-like UEFI; okay, it might have been made with us in mind, but as I said, IBM (and every other company) looks out for #1. It might not work, it probably won't. But how much time out of your day is it to write a short letter to Intel to let them know you won't be buying any equipment with non-over-ridable UEFI signing (which, I'd wager, is true...)?
Dealing with Intel every day, their primary concern is the business user - business stable. Not the modder. That's why they only have a few "mod" options (e.g. Extreme Edition), and even the options they do provide for overriding defaults are "unsupported." Intel boards are not the cheapest ones out there, but they are damn stable, and warranty is instant (we get replacements by the next business day). I've inquired many times about being able to add SLIC - not going to happen any time soon. With Intel, every thing is locked down, but there's a reason for that - control, validation, and stability. Hundreds of letters are not going to make a difference... It will take a volume purchase/commitment to be able to get them to do something like that (MNC), and even at that point, the BIOS would still be the same (digitally signed, secured, etc...).
Exactly, from professional (vendor's) point of view, if customers have any problem with BIOS of their product, they should write for support and hope to get an official update to solve this problem one day, definitely not to perform some home-made modding. I'd say that unlike other vendors's MB, it's almost impossible to "kill" Intel board with wrong bios modding or failed flashing, unless you do this on purpose.
It's a nice and funny idea to write a letter to Intel. But I guess they will answer that there are unsigned areas at the bios and tools to edit there. They decide what's OK to mod, all other is for security reason digitally signed. They will argue with security reasons. If they would allow to bypass the signature validation to allow modding someone could inject malicious code. They will say that therefore we have developed the safest and securest bios. -Don't buy such a board if you really don't need it. The Intel reference boards for new Intel chipsets are anyhow not as good as others e.g. made by ASUS. Intel boards are not often used....hence only a few are interested to crack it. To cirumvent the signature is the challenge.....
Intel strategy I think that Yen has hit the nail in the head, however, ASUS or others when they design motherboards besides the multilayer printed circuit boards and its corresponding passive components (resistors, capacitors,connectors, cabling,etc,etc) they will have semiconductors so what is the chance that these designers will accept the Intel move and procure and design in these solutions in the future..................so at some stage the challenge as Yen says must be circumvent otherwise we all be F up at some stage?
No good news at thew moment. I gave my board to one guy owning programmer. He said after 2 days of try that he can do nothing with it, he even can not restore oficcial bios (he even asked help other people owning programmer in our town). Waiting for technical detailes from him. I'll report programmers model here.
Hello guys, nice to meet you. Thanks! The BIOS already present on the EEPROM is responsible for verifying the digital signature of the new BIOS to be flashed. The problem, therefore, is getting a modded bios onto the EEPROM in the first place.[/quote] Yeah, I figured that out in the meantime. Where did it find 1000 modules? Are you sure it is parsing it correctly? Thanks, will try to look at it tomorrow. Let us continue this via PM if you don't mind.
Why dont we replace the bloody bios with Award one..?? Sorry if I sound too stupid, but I wonder why the mobo vendors always prefer one bios vendor than others. Moreover, if the bios is just a program, why cant the same chip be reprogrammed with bios from other bios vendor e.g. phoenix replacing insyde or award replacing ami etc particularly when the chip capacity is of same size e.g. 4 mb or 8 mb...?? EDIT: Pardon me if its too foolish as my tech knowhow ~ 0