←back to thread

Linux and Secure Boot certificate expiration

(lwn.net)
253 points pabs3 | 1 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 #
sugarpimpdorsey ◴[18 Jul 25 07:50 UTC] No.44602288[source]▶
It makes more sense if you view it for what it is: Honest Satya's Certificate Authority.

Microsoft showed they can semi-competently run a PKI. The end.

Now had the Linux folks stepped up to the plate early on, instead of childishly acting like Secure Boot was the computing antichrist, the story might be different. But they didn't. We only have shim because some people at Red Hat had the common sense to play ball.

replies(7): >>44602337 #>>44602402 #>>44602511 #>>44602526 #>>44602770 #>>44603173 #>>44604349 #
ACCount36 ◴[18 Jul 25 08:35 UTC] No.44602526[source]▶
Secure Boot is the computing antichrist, and Linux folk were 100% right to rally against it. As well as a whole bunch of other "Trusted Computing" garbage.
replies(4): >>44602678 #>>44604560 #>>44617843 #>>44656080 #
1. rurban ◴[23 Jul 25 05:54 UTC] No.44656080{3}[source]▶
Trusted Computing is to trust the NSA with your computing. They need to have access, right? And since they cannot control all hardware vendors, they opted to control Microsoft instead, and forced UNIX to play ball.