Weather | TV Guide | Horoscopes | Competitions

Hotmail
Messenger
Mobile

Vista SP1 won't install on dual-boot systems: Microsoft

Send to a friend

James Bannan26 March 2008, 12:24 AM

Are you currently running Windows and Linux in a dual-boot setup? You're going to have major headaches with Vista SP1, Microsoft has admitted.

If you’re dualbooting Windows Vista Enterprise or Ultimate alongside a Linux distro, and have installed the Linux bootloader into the MBR, then you’re guaranteed to run into problems when installing Vista Service Pack 1, Microsoft has admitted.

The service pack has a couple of prerequisite updates and one of them, KB935509, contains an update to the Windows Vista bootloader. However, this bootloader is often replaced by open source bootloaders like Grub when installing Linux onto a system.

Microsoft has excused itself by saying Vista SP1 contains an update to the BitLocker feature, and replacing the bootloader is a necessary prerequisite just in case the system being serviced contains a drive encrypted with BitLocker or worse, an encrypted boot partition.

However, the update performs a “chain of trust” integrity check on the system’s boot sequence, from the onboard TPM chip, through the MBR and into the operating system itself. In a dualbooting scenario where the Vista bootloader has been replaced (eg: with GRUB or LILO), the integrity check fails and the update aborts, halting the service pack installation.

Microsoft Technology Advisor Michael Kleef explained to APC that “…BitLocker isn’t just about encryption and system validation, but rather data integrity. When you enter your PIN, BitLocker checks it every step of the way from the TPM chip through the bootloader, and if it finds something that doesn’t match what it’s expecting, access is denied. Installing LILO or GRUB effectively breaks the chain of trust as these bootloaders take over the MBR, so on an encrypted boot partition, this means that the system won’t boot.

“However, it’s actually a very good thing that the update and the servicing fail in this scenario, because you can just imagine the implications if the update automatically reinstalled the Vista MBR to restore boot integrity – we’d be flooded with complaints.”

Microsoft hasn’t tested dualbooting scenarios - certainly not to the extent that they’re prepared to comment on them, at least – but there are a number of reports of successful workarounds in this situation.

If the Linux and Vista partitions are installed on the same hard drive, you have to restore the Vista MBR, either using the Vista recovery DVD or using the MBR reinstall feature contained within EasyBCD, before installing SP1.

If the operating systems are on different hard drives, simply change the drive boot order in the BIOS to point to the disk containing Vista first, thus bypassing the Linux bootloader on the primary disk.

Once SP1 has been installed, you can go back and either reinstall the non-Vista bootloader or change the hard drive boot order back to the way it was. But in either case, if Vista’s bootloader isn’t installed to the MBR, BitLocker won’t function and the MBR will need to be restored before it can be used.

The failure of KB935509 does not depend on whether BitLocker is active, but rather the host operating system’s capacity for using it. Therefore, although the bootloader is unified across all versions of Vista, only Vista Enterprise and Ultimate are affected – other versions do not feature BitLocker and so do not require KB935509 as an SP1 prerequisite. APC tested this with different versions of Vista and have verified that they are unaffected.

Comments

RSS feed

Email alert

anonymuos (User):

Why can't they include it in Control Panel options? A checkbox for "Check MBR integrity when Bitlocker is enabled"? And what will happen on iMacs with Boot Camp? GRUB is like the univeral boot loader, MS should make it work with AT LEAST Grub as an exception.

28 March 2008, 5:27 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Tin (Senior Forumologist):

I had no problems at all on my desktop PC. I used an MSDN copy of SP1, but should still be the same...
I'm using XOSL as my boot manager, but again, that shouldn't make a difference.

31 March 2008, 2:22 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend

bartonlp (New user):

This is just another very good reason to wipe the MS Windows partition and stop that dual-boot nonsense. After you wipe MS Windows out of your life use the disk space with your Linux system. Or if you don't want to loose your data just mount that partition using ntfs, then wipe out that ugly, bloated Windows and Program directory. Life will be so much simpler!

14 April 2008, 2:25 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend

droid (New user):

Please report this to Microsoft. Now that they embrace Open Source, I'm sure they will release an update to fix this 'bug'.

droid

14 April 2008, 2:32 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend

droid (New user):

Please report this to Microsoft. Now that they embrace Open Source, I'm sure they will release an update to fix this 'bug'.

droid

14 April 2008, 2:35 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend

YaroMan86 (New user):

Do not be naive. Any exhibition of "embracing open source" by Microsoft is so they can find some way to destroy it.

If there is one thing I have learned over Microsoft's history, it is this: "Beware of Microsoft becoming buddy-buddy with something it has been known to want to destroy.

I recommend reading the Halloween Documents. They're at most ten years old and give a more realistic view of Microsoft's strategy with open source. I'll only believe Microsoft is open source when they actually RELEASE something that falls under the Open Source Definition. And even then I'll be cautious.

IF Windows goes open source, I might believe it. But so far every so-called 'open source' program that have produced always has a legal catch to keep it from being real open source. Like non-commercial distribution only, for example. Linux got where it was because it was not restricted to non-commercial use.

No, lets face facts, this SP1 update is a blatant attempt on the part of Microsoft to sabotage a non-Microsoft operating system. And I am not surprised. Windows Setup already kills GRUB's MBR upon installation anyway.now Microsoft is making it an even bigger problem.

17 April 2008, 9:35 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend

droid (New user):

I couldn't agree more, YaroMan86. My post was an attempt at sarcasm. I'm actually surprised that Bill hasn't made an attempt on Linus' life.

17 April 2008, 1:32 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend

xgamer3000 (New user):

Right. Like Bill is really going to to do that. He's more of a businessman (not defending him here) than a cold killer.

21 April 2008, 5:05 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend

xgamer3000 (New user):

Right. Like Bill is really going to to do that. He's more of a businessman (not defending him here) than a cold killer.

21 April 2008, 5:06 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend

metawork (User):

I am using vista ultimate 64 bit. Till now i did not get any problem. I hope the problem with the home version only.cheap hosting

10 August 2009, 4:05 AM (7 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend

xgamer3000 (New user):

Right. Like Bill is really going to do that to him. Cmon! He's a businessman more than a cold killer. Though I guess some people have their own thoughts about him!

21 April 2008, 5:06 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend

droid (New user):

Some people said Al Capone was just a business man, too. I just know I wouldn't want to get between either one of them and a pile of money.

21 April 2008, 5:54 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend

xgamer3000 (New user):

I concede to your comment, droid. I suppose Bill has the upperhand. But maybe that pile of money is closer to Bill than it is to Linus.

Tom

21 April 2008, 6:01 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend

YaroMan86 (New user):

Which makes Linus Torvalds all the more appealing, and also makes Linux all the better. People are looking for a hero. Here's a guy who won't charge a DIME for the Linux kernel. Here's a guy who said that GPLing the kernel was the best decision he had ever made.

Now we have Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer. They are not looking to create a revolutionary operating system kernel or bring about positive change in a massive scale (Of course, according to Linus, neither did he, but that's what ended up happening.). No, all Gates and Ballmer want is: Money and Windows on every single computer on the planet. In other words. Money, and MORE money from a maintained monopoly.

Linus is already making good money of off Linux, anyway. Maybe not as much as Bill but that is likely because Linus won't be turning into a greedy, monopolistic bastard like Bill or Steve.

The reason Linux is so much better than windows was because it wasn't designed for SELLING in mind, but for actual usage. None of this anti-Keep It Simple Stupid crap that Microsoft enjoys with the NT kernel at its current incarnation.

This is because Linus was being an artisan programmer, programming for the hell of it, with a little bit of a craftsman need in there, when he started the Linux kernel, it was because he found the Minix kernel lacking.

The boys over at Microsoft are merchant programmers, making programs designed more to SELL than anything. Thus they add all these bells and whistles and horribleness, but it makes their products mediocre at best.

23 April 2008, 7:08 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend

markj73 (New user):

I have installed Vista (ultimate) and Linux on the same drive
and added Vista SP1 to 4 different computers both
x86 & x64 I dont see the problem? ALl still boot
both OS's just fine, without me having to do / change /
fix anything, it just worked both with Ubuntu (Grub) and SUSE 10.3 (Grub)

I have no idea where they get the idea this is a problem...

02 May 2008, 3:20 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Mint Linux (New user):

Loaded Vista Home Premium with SP1 then loaded Ubuntu Hardy. No problem until I went back and tried to update vista. It tried to load a new updated service pack 1
but fails. It seems to me this is more of the Microsoft Attitude "win at all costs".

23 July 2008, 4:39 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Craig Ringer (New user):

Vista's bootloader can load the GRUB bootloader. 2000, XP and Vista all support a boot menu, which they show if there's more than one entry in boot.ini . The bootloader is capable of loading a saved image of a first-stage GRUB boot sector, after which GRUB can take control and boot whatever you like.

That way, if you boot Vista no non-Microsoft code runs and the TPM chain of trust is maintained. If you boot Linux, you must do so with one layer of indirection via the Windows boot loader, but that's not a big deal.

See, for example:

http://oreilly.com/pub/h/2337

particularly the section "Booting Linux".

31 July 2008, 12:09 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend

mark73 (New user):

People are smokin' something here, definitely just more Micro$oft FUD!!!
works just fine people... Done it both on my laptop and in VM, no issues
adding SP1 to Vista Ultimate 32 & 64 bit. So I call it M$FUD.

01 August 2008, 1:13 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend

hozelda (New user):

That's what it looks like to me.

Monopolysoft looks for every excuse under the sun to justify why it must do X where X just happens to help it lock in it's market share.

I think that Monopolysoft should be forced to yield locking up the low end consumer PC. That market requires access to multiple OS more than it requires super duper tight security (not to mention that Vista's problems are hardly limited to the boot loader). This market has been defined thusly for decades.

What Monopolysoft might be able to have is the possibility for exclusive access to high end workstations for security reasons. I don't know if this scenario would violate antitrust laws, but certainly trying to control typical PCs would.

[IANAL, eg, "certainly" doesn't necessarily mean "certainly".]

For those confused. Replacing the bootloader adds another hurdle to those running Linux and other OS dual boot. Those with less technical sophistication won't even know what hit them. They will just know that the other environment doesn't work any longer and will have to pay money to get it to work again.

Given how little Vista offers for its high price, most consumers should avoid it for the time being. If you already paid for XP, you should continue using that since it likely works fine.

01 August 2008, 3:30 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend

pjohng33 (New user):

I have a dual boot system of vista and linux where they are on seperate drives and even though I ensured the boot order loaded the vista hardrive first I still cannot instal SP1 It installs but as soon as the computer restarts to finish the installation it crashes.

13 August 2008, 4:43 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend