You must log in or register to comment.
- Kongar@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish20 days
Unpopular opinion but I’m dying on this hill. Secure boot creates more problems than it solves.
- JiveTurkey@lemmy.worldEnglish20 days
I’d argue this is actually a popular opinion. IMO secureboot has just become a way for Microsoft to leverage it’s position and keep a strangle hold on industries they have no business being in.
The whole kernel level anti-cheat on win11 bullshit in the gaming industry is a good example. Essentially locking games to its platform and willing to sacrifice security to do so at our expense.
- 20 days
This is especially true on computers where it is impossible to change the signing keys. Smartphones, game consoles, many laptops, some desktops, smart TVs, IoT devices, modern cars, etc.
20 days11 old and forgotten UEFI shim bootloaders at versions 0.9 and below that can be used to bypass UEFI Secure Boot on any UEFI-based machine that trusts Microsoft’s Microsoft Corporation UEFI CA 2011 third-party UEFI certificate authority (CA) certificate, regardless of the installed operating system (OS).
This “Trust” is one of my pet peeves. It’s $$$.
- naticus@lemmy.worldEnglish20 days
I get why you’d dislike that wording, but this is also how all certificate stores work, regardless of whether we’re talking Secure Boot, Windows or Linux. Gotta trust the top level as providing legitimate certificates to then trust everything underlying as coming from the correct parties.
Certificate are something I work with constantly at work and I fucking hate resolving issues with them lol.
- CriticalMiss@lemmy.worldEnglish20 days
Arch Wiki had pointed out for years that Secure Boot is a flawed mechanism.
It’s not flawed at all. But its purpose isn’t actually to secure anything. Its purpose is to complicate the installation of alternative OS and to perpetuate vendor lock in, while sounding like it’s “for your security”. In that regard, it has succeeded.
There is also TPM and Microsoft Pluton, which serve the same purpose.
