On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 10:46:34AM +0200, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > > Secure Boot (Microsoft's attempt to stop you from using Linux) > > Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > While I'm not a fan of Microsoft: > > > https://wiki.debian.org/SecureBoot#What_is_UEFI_Secure_Boot_NOT.3 > > > "Microsoft act as a Certification Authority (CA) for SB, and they will > > > sign programs on behalf of other trusted organisations so that their > > > programs will also run." > > to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > - do you know any other alternative CA besides Microsoft > > - is there any internationally legal binding of Microsoft > > Actually it is the mainboard producers and possibly the CPU producers who > decide who is in charge as CA.
:-) Yes, I know how it (should) work. I was pointing out what the actual effect is. > create an independent institution which authorizes the legitimate > boot programs which are acceptable by default. You know I'm a fan of some bastard of Clarke's Third Law and Hanlon's Razor. In this case, it applies nicely: "Any sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from stupidity" (some call that "plausible deniability"). Now it doesn't help to whine around that "THEY" are cementing their monopoly (again"). Well, duh. It's what they do, and I do commend all the hacker's efforts to understand the new machinery some aliens have dumped on our yards. I was just toning down our nerdy "Oh, shiny, no more evil maid attacks" enthusiasm and just refusing to let Microsoft off that hook, although they are behaving in a halfway civilised way (the monopoly probes might have some relation to that, who knows). Cheers - t
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
