Talk:UEFI
Latest comment: 4 months ago by PhotographyEdits in topic Missing Sections: Vulnerabilities/Security Flaws
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the UEFI article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 120 days |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Missing Sections: Vulnerabilities/Security Flaws
editExtensible in what way? Basic Input/Out System ROM is basic. Extensible, as in extending the drawbridge for malware to take over someone's personal PC. It's not theoretical, I have seen it in practice.
All the advantages of UEFI/EFI is hype.
1. Intel CPU startup in 16-bit mode for compatibility reasons. UEFI/EFI does not change this. 2. Faster startup. False. Bulk of the OS still needs to be loaded from a mass storage device. 3. More secure. False. UEFI creates a partition to operate from, but it's actually malware. It can redirect the PC to boot into Window PE and load Windows on the System Partition in a virtual machine and take over the PC. Rootkit infection. If you have seen PC infected with a Rootkit, it carves out partitions without telling you or notifying you. You'll only find it by close examination.
76.135.37.152 (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Tae Hyun Song
- > Extensible in what way?
- With DXE modules. I'm not saying it is particularly good, but I would say it is better extensible than a traditional x86 BIOS.
- > 2. Faster startup. False.
- You might be right on that one, the reference do not include any independent measurements of boot times.
- > 3. More secure. False.
- No. It is *more* secure. There are still security issues, but traditional BIOS had zero verification of the further steps in the boot chain. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)