←back to thread

The Dangers of Microsoft Pluton

(gabrielsieben.tech)
733 points gjsman-1000 | 2 comments | 26 Jul 22 03:46 UTC | HN request time: 0.425s | source
Show context
userbinator ◴[26 Jul 22 05:05 UTC] No.32234457[source]▶
What is to prevent school WiFi from one day requiring a Pluton assertion that your Windows PC hasn’t been tampered with before you can join the network?

Remote attestation is the true enemy of your freedom. The power of the authoritarian corporatocracy to force you to use only the (entire) systems they control. It's worth reading https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html again just to see how prescient Stallman was.

replies(12): >>32234704 #>>32235241 #>>32236203 #>>32236379 #>>32236408 #>>32237069 #>>32237245 #>>32238451 #>>32239672 #>>32239680 #>>32239999 #>>32240046 #
acdha ◴[26 Jul 22 11:57 UTC] No.32237069[source]▶
> It's worth reading https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html again just to see how prescient Stallman was.

I think it’s also worth asking why he didn’t have more impact despite pretty clearly seeing this problem. Part of the answer has to be resource disparities but I don’t think it’s just that - Linux didn’t really capitalize at all on Microsoft’s lost decade, and much of the innovation in security has happened on other platforms. I think there’s also some kind of blind spot in the open source community where a lot of people see this as something other people need, not them personally.

replies(3): >>32237422 #>>32238476 #>>32246107 #
userbinator ◴[27 Jul 22 01:45 UTC] No.32246107[source]▶
Consider that the one whose comment is currently at the top is pro-cancel-Stallman, and he also works on "free" software related to secure boot --- not as in breaking, but instead aiding its adoption.

The FSF was strongly against secure boot, then inexplicably started seeming to be in favour of it.

Connect the dots yourself.

replies(1): >>32246171 #
acdha ◴[27 Jul 22 02:01 UTC] No.32246171[source]▶
Why don’t you spell out the conspiracy theory directly? It’s not relevant to this thread even if true but leaving the details vague makes it seem like you don’t think it would stand up.
replies(1): >>32246781 #
1. userbinator ◴[27 Jul 22 04:12 UTC] No.32246781[source]▶
You only think it's a "conspiracy theory" because that's what they have told you to believe. The organisations of OSS have been infected with those whose ultimate goal is to EEE, and they will do it by whatever means they have available to them.
replies(1): >>32249589 #
2. acdha ◴[27 Jul 22 12:22 UTC] No.32249589[source]▶
No, I think it’s a conspiracy theory because it’s poorly argued and full of insinuation, following the classic pattern of expecting the reader to fill in the gaps. This is how it magically becomes a negative when someone works to make free software compatible with modern hardware in a way most users want.