←back to thread

Linux and Secure Boot certificate expiration

(lwn.net)
253 points pabs3 | 2 comments | 18 Jul 25 03:53 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
greatgib ◴[18 Jul 25 06:46 UTC] No.44601921[source]▶
It's totally crazy that we have to go through Microsoft to sign things to be able to have our OS run on third parties computers, and that Microsoft manage to win about this so easily as it was never seriously challenged.
replies(7): >>44601962 #>>44602085 #>>44602088 #>>44602288 #>>44602373 #>>44602674 #>>44615523 #
nine_k ◴[18 Jul 25 07:16 UTC] No.44602088[source]▶
Basically every x64 computer is intended to be able to run Windows. Hence MS had to be involved, and I suppose nobody else with serious money wanted the burden.

AFAICT you can still disable Secure Boot in most UEFI firmware, and boot anything you like (or not like, if an attacker tampers with your system).

replies(3): >>44602233 #>>44602369 #>>44604472 #
1. oakwhiz ◴[18 Jul 25 07:41 UTC] No.44602233[source]▶
We don't even reap the benefits of autocratic decisions from Microsoft in this area. Boards always come out with things like messed up ACPI, etc.
replies(1): >>44602448 #
2. p_l ◴[18 Jul 25 08:20 UTC] No.44602448[source]▶
Boards' ACPI etc. is still better than what it would be without "certified for Windows" (whatever name of the hour is) programs