Linux and Secure Boot certificate expiration

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.

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).

Secure boot belongs to a class of security that while clearly giving a theoretical benefit in practice it falls far short of providing any benefit whatsoever at least to the user of a system. Its introduction was mostly part of a wider (probably partially defunct and failed regarding mobile x86) strategy to lock down the PC so the Microsoft store and purchased apps through it would be more secure from the end-user. Secondary was in my opinion better security for handheld phones and tablets running x86 but there the "App store" aspect is even more clear.

"attacker tampers with your system" does not happen at least in the way you think it does or it does not protect you against meaningful attack at all.

What kinds of attacks was Secure Boot designed to mitigate? Is it the evil maid attack? Or an accidentally ran with `sudo` program can indeed screw your entire boot process and inject rootkits etc.? Or is it something else?