Yeah, he’s so right. No software in this world has ever been pwned, only Secure Boot, sure it is not actually secure right. RSA is safe, SHA1 is too aha… Only SB was bypassed, nobody done anything about that since… Jokes aside! Seriously, M$ wants our hardware!
OK here’s how you can understand how SB is a security actor: disable it (or, you did it already right) and boot from a USB stick with some known EFI malware / rootkit / etc thingie on it.
Or better follow e.g. CodeRush to get better idea on UEFI security.
Heck, I wasn’t going to argue on this but congrats you made me do it. Now I’d better leave the above sarcastic sentences here and leave this topic too as I’ve already done my suggestions to OP’s issue.
No, just sufficient control of x86-64 and aarch64 so as to maintain their Monopoly on the Desktop.
You are no longer actually arguing the point. Just making sarcastic comments
I’ve disable it, have had it disabled on every computer I’ve owned, since it was introduced, because I understood it’s true purpose,long before it was introduced.
…not going to make the next move. Let me guess. You never faced a situation where SB prevents you from booting something malicious? Availability bias and prejudice?
Microsoft, and other players, would have you believe it is.
If you are the only user, and you’re not likely to attempt booting with a foreign and untested boot cd/dvd/usb or OS, then there is no security risk in leaving Secure Boot disabled.
This is not an opinion; it’s simply true. Subscribing to any other school of thought is paramount to drinking the Kool-Aid.
MSI mainboards had an effectively broken UEFI implementation throughout a wide range of their product line. While I don’t have the specifics readily available, your preferred search engine should reveal something about it.
This is purely for the sake of interest, not intended to either add or subtract from your comment.
In fact, the comments from @Aragorn were moreover an historical account of the emergence of Secure Boot, rather than being simply one-man’s-take on the topic; albeit presented in a highly opiniated fashion.
Your general anti-anyone’s-opinion-but-thine-own theme begins to quickly become tiresome.
There is a technical term for this – false positive – a condition that Security industries seem to actively exploit as a part of ongoing marketing strategy.
Yes, that was an opinion; based on non-reactive observation.
If you don’t like it, I do have others.
My suggestion is to change your moniker; openminded, you clearly are not. I, like other readers of your comments, could probably think of more apt terms; but, I digress.
I got a similar feeling when I read posts of people like you. Feels like I’m talking to conspiracy theory believers or never grown up kids accusing corporations whenever they can. Time goes by, nobody took over bootloaders as you guys feared of, users are even allowed to enroll whatever keys they want, but you still say what you used to say more than 10 years ago – “scary M$ wants to take over the platform”. I remember when it started very well. I remember viruses destroying BIOS. And I’m glad M$ tries to hunt down nasty !@#$ trying to brick chips or encrypt user’s disks. You want me change my moniker lol, but I have a better idea: what about changing your CD since it’s stuck in your CD changer and been playing the same track over and over for >10 years already.
You still haven’t booted a malicious thingie with SB off (or on, it would be even better – I don’t want any harm done to your PC), so your suggestions are neglected and denied as moot.
Damn, what a comedy. Well, I had enough. Sorry for offence if you felt any – it was not intended.
And I’m glad M$ does commit to Linux kernel – without them, Linux would never be as usable as it is now. This is what open-minded-ness is, not what you think of it.
The invention of Secure Boot - more correctly labelled as Restricted Boot is generally perceived as a hostile takeover attempt - simply because it fits into the narrative.
While I don’t like anything forced onto me - the narrative that Microsoft is using it to lock out other use and proprietise the x86 architecture is most likely wrong.
Yes - there is valid reasons to restrict boot
Yes - FAT32 is used - but the fact that FAT16 works equally well - is taking the air out of that argument - so there is that.
Yes - Microsoft initiated a method of restriction
Yes - After all their systems is used billions computer systems
Yes - They require a restricted loader to protect the operating system
Yes - Microsoft created the initial certificate
Yes - they created a system which you needed to cough up a fee - but that is more likely due to prevent malicious parties from getting a certificate for they malicious loaders.
As per forum rules
bashing of other operating systems
or ridiculing them is frowned upon.
I have emphasised the phrase or any other operating systems is prohibited so you understand it includes Microsoft Windows.
Respect Other Distributions and Operating Systems
Discussion of the pros and cons of other GNU/Linux distributions and operating systems is allowed. Maligning other GNU/Linux distributions, or any other operating systems is prohibited. The entire Manjaro team is happy to volunteer their time and energy to provide you with the Manjaro Linux distribution, documentation and forums.
Kindly show respect toward the developers and volunteers of other distributions and operating systems as well.
Views, experiences and opinions are always welcome, but unproductive slander is not.
– Forum Rules - Manjaro
Availability bias and prejudice?
