Lennart Poettering, Christian Brauner founded a new company • Hacker News Board

Re: Lennart Poettering, Christian Brauner founded a new company

#731

Post by gosub100 » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 12:51 PM UTC

cbarrick wrote: post #614

2pEXgD0fZ5cF wrote: post #500

Well I was wondering when the war on general computing and computer ownership would be carried into the heart of the open source ecosystems. Sure, there are sensible things that could be done with this. But given the background of the people involved, the fact that this is yet another clear profit-first gathering makes me incredibly pessimistic. This pessimism is made worse by reading the answers of the founders here…

> [T]he war on general computing and computer ownership [...] It is exhausting to see the hatred some have for people just owning their hardware. The integrity of a system being verified/verifiable doesn't imply that the owner of the system doesn't get to control it. This sort of e2e attestation seems really useful for enterprise or public infrastructure. Like, it'd be great to know that the ATMs or transit systems i…

You want PCIe-6? Cool well that only runs on Asus G-series with AI, and is locked to attested devices because the performance is so high that bad code can literally destroy it. So for safety, we only run trusted drivers and because they must be signed, you have to use Redhat Premium at a monthly cost of $129. But you get automatic updates.

Re: Lennart Poettering, Christian Brauner founded a new company

#732

Post by direwolf20 » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 1:05 PM UTC

egorfine wrote: post #711

Spivak wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with general purpose computing and everything to do with allowing you to authenticate the parts of the Linux boot process that must by necessity be left unencrypted in order to actually boot your computer. This is putting SecureBoot and the TPM to work for your benefit. It's not propaganda in any sense, it's recognizing that Linux is behind the state of the art compa…

> we should improve the Linux boot process to be a tight security-wise as the Windows I hope this never happens. I really want my data secure and I do have something to hide. So, no Microsoft keys on my computer and only I will decide what kind of software I get to run. Absolutely fuck that.

Security is fine, if you can reset the keys at any time.

Re: Lennart Poettering, Christian Brauner founded a new company

#733

Post by cwillu » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 1:15 PM UTC

avadodin wrote: post #693

hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a malicious update can be pushed because of some failure in the signature verification checks (which already exist), what makes you think the threat actor won’t have access to signing keys? This is not what attestation is even seeking to solve.

Firmware upgrades don't need to use the same protocols. Without secure boot any applet can take a security hole escalate and persist until you take a trip to a zone of interest. With secure-boot+attestation, the vendors can choose not to let you download the latest map data, report you to the authorities, etc. Why do people take DA as "Hail Satan" anyways.

“With secure-boot+attestation, the vendors can choose not to let you download the latest map data, report you to the authorities”

As far as I'm concerned, you just conceded the argument.

Re: Lennart Poettering, Christian Brauner founded a new company

#734

Post by egorfine » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 1:26 PM UTC

direwolf20 wrote: post #732

egorfine wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we should improve the Linux boot process to be a tight security-wise as the Windows I hope this never happens. I really want my data secure and I do have something to hide. So, no Microsoft keys on my computer and only I will decide what kind of software I get to run. Absolutely fuck that.

Security is fine, if you can reset the keys at any time.

If.

Re: Lennart Poettering, Christian Brauner founded a new company

#735

Post by blacklion » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 1:57 PM UTC

ahepp wrote: post #685

blacklion wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IoT and robotics should (dare I say "must"?) not use general-purpose OSes at all. This «Linux have a finger in every pie» attitude is very harmful for industry, IMHO.

How are you defining "general-purpose OS"? Are you saying IoT and robotics shouldn't use a Linux kernel at all? Or just not your general purpose distros? I would be interested to hear more of your logic here, since it seems like using the same FOSS operating system across various uses provides a lot of value to everyone.

I think, that I want at least hard-real-time OS in any computer which can move physical objects. Linux kernel cannot be it: hard RTOS cannot have virtual memory (mapping walks is unpredictable in case of TLB miss) and many other mechanisms which are desired in desktop/server OS are ill-suited for RTOS. Scheduler must be tuned differently, I/O must be done differently. It is not only «this process have RT priority, don't preempt it», it is design of whole kernel.

Better, this OS must be verified (as seL4). But I understand, that it is pipe dream. Heck, even RTOS is pipe dream.

About IoT: this word means nothing. Is connected TV IoT? I have no problems with Linux inside it. My lightbulb which can be turned on and off via ZigBee? Why do I need Linux here? My battery-powered weather station (because I cannot put 220v wiring in backyard)? Better no, I need as-low-power-as-possible solution.

To be honest, O think even using one kernel for different servers is technically wrong, because RDBMS, file server and computational node needs very different priories in kernel tuning too. I prefer network stack of FreeBSD, file server capabilities (native ZFS & Ko) of Solaris, transaction processing of Tandem/HPE NonStop OS and Wayland/GPU/Desktop support of Linux. But everything bar Linux is effectively dead. And Linux is only «good enough» in everything, mediocre.

I understand value of unification, but as engineer I'm sad.

Re: Lennart Poettering, Christian Brauner founded a new company

#736

Post by blacklion » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 2:02 PM UTC

fc417fc802 wrote: post #582

blacklion wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IoT and robotics should (dare I say "must"?) not use general-purpose OSes at all. This «Linux have a finger in every pie» attitude is very harmful for industry, IMHO.

Why shouldn't they use the kernel, systemd, and a few core utilities? Why reinvent the wheel? There's nothing requiring them to pull in a typical desktop userspace.

Because different tasks requires different trade-offs and Linux has only one set of trade-offs. You cannot do good universal tool. It is like Leatherman, good enough to fix-up your bike on the side of the road, not so for normal workshop.

You say: reinvent the wheel.

I say: use pickup truck for every task, from farming to racing to commuting moving goods across continent. Is it possible? Of course. Is it good idea? I don't think so.

All cars are the same if you squint enough, wheels, engine, some frame, some controls, which are not very different between even F1 car and 18-wheel truck.

Re: Lennart Poettering, Christian Brauner founded a new company

#737

Post by ahartmetz » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 2:09 PM UTC

cyphar wrote: post #727

ahartmetz wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far, that's a slick way to say not really. You are vague where it counts, and surely you have a better idea of the direction than you say. Attestation of what to whom for which purpose? Which freedom does it allow users to control their keys, how does it square with remote attestation and the wishes of enterprise users?

I'm really not trying to be slick, but I think it's quite difficult to convince people about anything concrete (such as precisely how this model is fundamentally different to models such as the Secure Boot PKI scheme and thus will not provide a mechanism to allow a non-owner of a device to restrict what runs on your machine) without providing a concrete implementation and design documents to back up what I'm saying.…

>I think that technological measures cannot fix a social problem

The absence of technological measures used to implement societal problems totally does help though. Just look at social media.

I fear the outlaw evil maid or other hypothetical attackers (good old scare-based sales tactics) much less than already powerful entities (enterprises, states) lawfully encroaching on my devices using your technology. So, I don't care about "misunderstandings" of the TPM or whatever other wall of text you are spewing to divert attention.

Re: Lennart Poettering, Christian Brauner founded a new company

#738

Post by bri3d » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 2:56 PM UTC

egorfine wrote: post #730

bri3d wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is: corporate will fund this project and enforce its usage for their users not for the sake of the users and not for the sake of doing any good. I'd really love to see this scenario actually explained. The only place I could really see client-side desktop Linux remote attestation gaining any foothold is to satisfy anti-cheat for gaming, which might actually be a win in many ways. > What it will be used for is…

> client-side desktop Linux remote attestation gaining any foothold is to satisfy anti-cheat for gaming, which might actually be a win in many ways. It will be, no doubt. As soon as it is successfully tested and deployed for games, it will be used for movies, government services, banks, etc. And before you know you do not have control of your own computer. > Who owns the garden? Not you. > everyone installs overlays…

> it will be used for movies, government services, banks

I really, really don't think these entities care enough about desktop Linux. I'd be way more worried about some kind of Windows web-based attestation appearing. If that happens I really do think there's a bit of an alarm to sound, because this will make using desktop Linux inconvenient in the way attestation has made using alternate Android ROMs inconvenient.

> Because you are obviously a hacker, why else would anyone want to compile and run programs.

People buy computers to run programs, it doesn't behoove anyone to prevent this. These things are driven by economics, not some weird arbitrary drive towards evil. Android strict attestation is popular because fraudulent cloned banking apps are a rampant problem for banks, not because they're trying to "stick it" to 200 GrapheneOS users.

> Once Microsoft decides you have had enough, the switch is flipped and in a couple of years no new Intel computer will boot your kernel.

Why does everyone land on this complete non sequitur? It's not the flip of a switch, that's not how UEFI Secure Boot works to start with and even then, UEFI Secure Boot is not the root of trust on x86.

This was indeed the big "Free Software" vs UEFI "Secure" Boot conspiracy theory 20+ years ago, but it didn't make sense then, doesn't make sense now, and sure enough, hasn't come to pass. First off, Microsoft aren't Intel, who own the root of trust on Intel CPUs. Second off, again, there's no incentive to do this. CPUs are a competitive market and people buy CPUs to run code. There is no reason for Intel to suddenly decide to exclusively enforce firmware verification in a way that only chained down to one vendor's keys; they're in the business of selling CPUs to people who want to run things. Also, the notion that some CPU vendor will suddenly lock down firmware keys has nothing to do with the article in question or the notion of an immutable or attestable Linux.

Re: Lennart Poettering, Christian Brauner founded a new company

#739

Post by microtonal » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 4:19 PM UTC

bri3d wrote: post #738

egorfine wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> client-side desktop Linux remote attestation gaining any foothold is to satisfy anti-cheat for gaming, which might actually be a win in many ways. It will be, no doubt. As soon as it is successfully tested and deployed for games, it will be used for movies, government services, banks, etc. And before you know you do not have control of your own computer. > Who owns the garden? Not you. > everyone installs overlays…

> it will be used for movies, government services, banks I really, really don't think these entities care enough about desktop Linux. I'd be way more worried about some kind of Windows web-based attestation appearing. If that happens I really do think there's a bit of an alarm to sound, because this will make using desktop Linux inconvenient in the way attestation has made using alternate Android ROMs inconvenient. >…

Android strict attestation is popular because fraudulent cloned banking apps are a rampant problem for banks, not because they're trying to "stick it" to 200 GrapheneOS users.

Where I live in Europe, Fairphones are becoming fairly popular (as in, I encounter non-tech people using Fairphones). A subset of those users run /e/OS (anti-Google/big tech sentiment is growing pretty strong). This is increasingly becoming a risk for Google, because if /e/OS takes off big time in Europe, it would be easy to support a European app store besides Google Play and F-Droid (which the /e/OS App Lounge already support), leading to a loss of 30% on app spending.

Google will abuse their remote attestation implementation to shut out competitors. If all they cared for was security, they would have worked with other Android-based operating system vendors that support bootloader locking to come with an industry-wide standard.

Re: Lennart Poettering, Christian Brauner founded a new company

#740

Post by cyphar » Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 4:27 PM UTC

Herbstluft wrote: post #376

quotemstr wrote: post #353

People demonize attestation. They should keep in mind that far from enslaving users, attestation actually enables some interesting, user-beneficial software shapes that wouldn't be possible otherwise. Hear me out. Imagine you're using a program hosted on some cloud service S. You send packets over the network; gears churn; you get some results back. What are the problems with such a service? You have no idea what S i…

I will put some trust into these people if they make this a pure nonprofit organization at the minimum. Building ON measures to ensure that this will not be pushed for the most obvious cases, which is to fight user freedom. This shouldn't be some afterthought. "Trust us" is never a good idea with profit seeking founders. Especially ones who come from a culture that generally hates the hacker spirit and general comput…

> trust us we're cool guys

I'm guessing you're referencing my comment, that isn't what I said.

> But the team is not even willing to make promises as big as yours.

Be honest, look at the comment threads for this announcement. Do you honestly think a promise alone would be sufficient to satisfy all of the clamouring voices?

No, people would (rightfully!) ask for more and more proof -- the best proof is going to be to continue building what we are building and then you can judge it on its merits. There are lots of justifiable concerns people have in this area but most either don't really apply what we are building or are much larger social problems that we really are not in a position to affect.

I would also prefer to be to judged based my actions not on wild speculation about what I might theoretically do in the future.