This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
This is needed. Servers need it, and it would be a nice feature to enable for personal systems. We would need to be able to build our own images with our own keys to really make this worthwhile. Especially with programs in my bin dir I’ve compiled or downloaded.
Do I trust Lennart to not do something asinine to turn this into a shit show? I do not. This would be better if it was someone who has security experience and system design cred.
I can't imagine anyone sane would hold onto the belief that it will remain just "a nice feature to enable" after looking at the historical encroachment of commercial interests in mobile phone boot chain setups. I tell you the truth that after widespread adoption this WILL turn into a "not nice feature that you cannot disable", and you can forget about enrolling your own keys as well.
I wonder if this would allow an anti-cheat system to get acceptable trust of a system without having to access ring 0.
Of course, we'd then need the OS / kernel images to be signed. I think most gamers run stock kernels anyway.
I just don't want see the garbage that is the Android Play Store where apps refuse to run because we run an OS that isn't profitable to Google.
Secureboot is worthless if the Microsoft keys are still enabled. It should only allow code that you sign yourself to boot.
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.
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.
The anti MS morons who don't understand secure boot and just regurgitating we hate this because it's associated with them are out 🙄
Because if there's one thing Linux users think about their systems .. it's "hey why does this thing let me do what I want?"
There’s a universe of difference between changes you intended to make in your system, and changes you didn’t intend because a state actor attacked you based on your social media criticism.
Unlike with closed source software, you can always decide you don’t want your software to be secure.
What you should be worried about is not software but hardware.
Uhhhh...wha?
This would be a big deal for hardware manufacturers or product manufacturers in securing their devices. Only a tiny, tiny fraction of Linux users are just desktop jockeys.
I was referring to this
If this technology is successful, the end result could be that we would see our Linux laptops one day being as locked down as an Iphone or Android device.
What if the thing that you want is to have SecureBoot-enforced hardware attestation?
What if it was just an off the cuff joke?
This is too many dependent probabilities
That would be beneficial to users as well. I'm not understanding the downside here.
I guess you're not thinking of "locked down" in terms of independent developers finding the iOS and Android "play by our rules and be distributed thru our app store or we'll make it hard for users to run your software" to be a barrier to distribution.
Bruh...that's not even the point of the company or what he's talking about. You're being paranoid, first off.
Second, you want secure devices? You can't have that right now with Linux very easily. There is no chain of trust coming from the hardware aside from TPM, which is kind of a joke. This guy wants to make a standard way of certifying a chain of trust which would allow an ecosystem of devices to maintain some semblance of trust amongst itself and other devices. This would make things like networks, edge devices, forward deployed hardware, and running sensitive data in less than secure locations more secure.
Last, if you're going to be paranoid, at least educate yourself on the subject. Not a single person who is even vaguely familiar with what this entails is thinking "Oh they're going to lock all our devices rawrawrawr". That's just ridiculous. That could happen now, but...you seeing that out in the components world anywhere? Absolutely not. Because it's no desirable, and that's NOT WHAT HES EVEN TALKING ABOUT.
🤦
Only being able to install "allowed" apps is not great for freedom.
Not even how that works FFS. You're not the target audience here.
Y'all really need to start reading more about things before jumping to ridiculously uninformed conclusions and making comments. My gosh.
Hey you fucking idiot, iPhones need to be jailbroken for that and Android is about to be locked down so developers will need to identify themselves to Google.
Get your condescending ass out of my face. I'm not in the damn mood for a random fucking stranger to tell me I'm an idiot for commenting on someone else's speculation. This is a lot meaner than I normally am, but I happen to be grumpy right now and you don't matter to me at all, so I will continue on to say: Fuck your unhelpful ass.
Seems like more of a "you" problem for not understanding the problem or solutions being discussed. Seems like maybe you probably just shouldn't have commented at all, huh?
Amutable are a gaggle of fucks
