this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2026
60 points (95.5% liked)
Technology
81611 readers
4451 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If the end user can arbitrarily sign code themselves that is bootable then it kind of defeats the purpose of secure boot.
The whole idea is that it makes it impossible to start if the chain of trust is broken.
You're arguing for protecting the PC from malicious changes made by you, the owner.
This is corporate speak. Yes, it would make sense to lock down a PC like that in a corporate setting.
For private use, the point is to secure the PC against malicious changes made by other people.
In this case, signing code yourself is perfectly fine.
It keeps someone from booting code that hasn't been signed with my key. That's the whole point of secure boot. If someone else has the key, then it's not secure anymore.