11–20 of 33 posts
I say that it takes this much effort to bypass it shows the opposite: that it does work, it does increase security.
Because without it, you’d be compromised already at step zero.
But like every security measure so far, it’s seemingly not perfect. Nobody is honestly surprised by that, are they?
In every UEFI thread there’s a bunch of critics saying, “See! It doesn’t work! UEFI secure boot is pointless!” I say that it takes this much effort to bypass it shows the opposite: that it does work, it does increase security. Because without it, you’d be compromised already at step zero. But like every security measure so far, it’s seemingly not perfect. Nobody is honestly surprised by that, are they?
Also the whole scheme is not better than making boot configuration read only with a hardware switch, or storing your bootloader and /boot on a read-only medium, assuming you are using full-disk encryption.
In every UEFI thread there’s a bunch of critics saying, “See! It doesn’t work! UEFI secure boot is pointless!” I say that it takes this much effort to bypass it shows the opposite: that it does work, it does increase security. Because without it, you’d be compromised already at step zero. But like every security measure so far, it’s seemingly not perfect. Nobody is honestly surprised by that, are they?
The issue that I have heard people bring up is that it could potentially make it harder to install free and open source operating systems and thus turn consumer-grade and relatively cheap computers into less of a tool that you can use the way you want and more into an appliance.
For all the panic that ensued when stuff like secure boot and similar were first announced, and the fact that I still seem able to install my Linux distro of choice, I as somebody who has not gotten personally invested in this am not in a position to know how real such an issue is.
But I would like to know what proponents of secure boot think the technology solves and why what we had before inadequately addressed security needs. Because it seems to me that e.g. Windows will still happily get infected with viruses such that whether the boot process itself has been compromised, or just what comes immediately thereafter, does not matter too much. Or does it?
In every UEFI thread there’s a bunch of critics saying, “See! It doesn’t work! UEFI secure boot is pointless!” I say that it takes this much effort to bypass it shows the opposite: that it does work, it does increase security. Because without it, you’d be compromised already at step zero. But like every security measure so far, it’s seemingly not perfect. Nobody is honestly surprised by that, are they?
If by "compromised already at step zero" you mean "just the way computers worked for decades prior to secure boot", then yeah, I suppose. The issue that I have heard people bring up is that it could potentially make it harder to install free and open source operating systems and thus turn consumer-grade and relatively cheap computers into less of a tool that you can use the way you want and more into an appliance. Fo…
In every UEFI thread there’s a bunch of critics saying, “See! It doesn’t work! UEFI secure boot is pointless!” I say that it takes this much effort to bypass it shows the opposite: that it does work, it does increase security. Because without it, you’d be compromised already at step zero. But like every security measure so far, it’s seemingly not perfect. Nobody is honestly surprised by that, are they?
Does this affect Debian, or Ubuntu only?
And nothing to do with Debian package management that had the command and file type of “apt”.
Does this affect Debian, or Ubuntu only?
No, and APTs refer to Advanced Persistent Threat (can be an organization, a malware, but with non-friendly or unintended intent). And nothing to do with Debian package management that had the command and file type of “apt”.