Last Tuesday, loads of Linux users—many running packages released as early as this year—started reporting their devices were failing to boot. Instead, they received a cryptic error message that included the phrase: “Something has gone seriously wrong.”
The cause: an update Microsoft issued as part of its monthly patch release. It was intended to close a 2-year-old vulnerability in GRUB, an open source boot loader used to start up many Linux devices. The vulnerability, with a severity rating of 8.6 out of 10, made it possible for hackers to bypass secure boot, the industry standard for ensuring that devices running Windows or other operating systems don’t load malicious firmware or software during the bootup process. CVE-2022-2601 was discovered in 2022, but for unclear reasons, Microsoft patched it only last Tuesday.
…
The reports indicate that multiple distributions, including Debian, Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Zorin OS, Puppy Linux, are all affected. Microsoft has yet to acknowledge the error publicly, explain how it wasn’t detected during testing, or provide technical guidance to those affected. Company representatives didn’t respond to an email seeking answers.
If it’s a Linux problem why Microsoft has to patch it?
It’s like if someone gives you a ride to the hospital and the doctor treats him instead of you
It’s a problem in the Secure Boot chain, every system is affected by any vulnerability in any past, present or future bootloader that that system currently trusts. Even if it’s an OS you aren’t using, an attacker could “just” install that vulnerable bootloader.
That said, MS had also been patching their own CVE-2023-24932 / CVE-2024-38058, and disabled the fix for that in this update due to widespread issues with it. I don’t think anyone knows what they’re doing anymore.
Because people cannot block darn windows updates. Its a real malware only allowed by law
I’m not sure I follow that analogy, if you get a ride to a hospital you don’t expect it to lock off all other destinations. What happens in the hospital is irrelevant.
From reading the article, this is more like if you walk into a hotel and they burn down your house so you have no choice but to stay. I suppose in theory you could argue in very bad faith that this is a problem with the house since it’s the house that burned, but in reality the problem is the fact they’re the ones who started the fire.
