Comment by greatgib 8 days ago
To start with, security of "secure boot" there is a joke because anyway all os have to be signed by Microsoft itself. So anyone with they certificate key can do whatever they want.
And btw, not that long ago it was released by researchers than more than 200 platforms from diverse but main laptops and servers manufacturers were still using leaked keys for signing their boot loaders...
> No-one has to be, and it certainly doesn't need to be anyone but the owner of the machine.
Technically the web should work with self-signed certificates. But that is likewise impractical.
Not really? The entire use model could be "just show a prompt on first use" which literally MS is trying to kill, because oh it just so happens the status quo basically benefits them and nobody else.
All evidence has always pointed to the purpose of Microsoft SecureBoot being introduced primarily as an obstacle to continued use of Windows 7 as well as Linux on PC's going forward when Windows 8 PC's were released.
Not like there's any question.
Overwhelmingly more so than for "security" purposes.
Any lesser understanding of Microsoft SecureBoot, well, I understand.
I've seen that kind of that kind of refusal before.
Basically a little bit yes. Especially for an entity located in US and with strong links to the basic government.
But in the case of secure boot, this is worse, because Microsoft is just a "software" editor. But its root certificate and probably a few random others are distributed in countless of devices produced by manufacturers unrelated to them, but also, a few number of software distributors will also have subkeys to be able to sign their os/software. All of that, with zero transparency.
And in the end, if I buy a Lenovo laptop, to have Linux OS running on it, there is no reason and no trust to have my OS be signed by Microsoft, that has the key to run whatever they want on my laptop. Think about it and you will see that it makes no sense at all, if you don't trust Microsoft for your OS, to have to trust them for ensuring a secure boot...
Technically you can revoke the default root of trust and install your own.
Then manually sign your bootloader.
This feature is available at least in my Gigabyte mainboard, but is not particularly easy to use, which is why bootloaders come pre-signed with a known root of trust. There's nothing stopping the installer from generating the root of trust on the fly, except for the default settings in many machines.
Can also preload measurements for hardware while at it so that nobody swaps a PCIe device for an evil twin.
Some PCs are able to use your own keys, which can be used to sign your bootloader. This has worked well for me with various HP computers (EliteBooks and EliteDesks). One of those, which only runs Linux, will refuse to boot the Windows installer. On my work laptop, I've also added the Windows key (not the 3rd party one) so I can dual-boot.
I understand some computers may not support this as well, so YMMV.
Here is the article I was referring to: https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/07/secure-boot-is-comp...
> security of "secure boot" there is a joke because anyway all os have to be signed by Microsoft itself.
Is Apple a joke because they sign the root of trust for their devices? Someone has to be the root authority. Honestly I trust MS more than I do Google or VerisignDigicert. They are the least likely to intentionally break things.
The reason MS controls the root and not Red Hat etc. is because the Linux camp spent years arguing back and forth about exactly how much they hate secure boot - like an HOA arguing over paint colors - instead of presenting solutions.
> So anyone with they certificate key can do whatever they want.
this is literally how PKI works
Somehow I think MS put a little more thought into their PKI design than whatever you're trying to convey here. What were the other options? Store it on a Yubikey sewn into rms's beard?
People are quick to dismiss secure boot simply because they refuse to understand it.