4 ms·
Misplaced blame. You can blame hardware vendors for this. They're supposed to provide a way to load arbitrary signatures, but some didn't (I think they all do n
by phendrenad2 4y ago
Misplaced blame. You can blame hardware vendors for this. They're supposed to provide a way to load arbitrary signatures, but some didn't (I think they all do now though). Microsoft also has a service where they will sign your executable. And before you claim that's a problem, remember that SSL works the exact same way.
- car_analogy 4y agoIt's perfectly well-placed blame. Windows RT devices are required to disallow anything but MS operating systems, with no user override: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_RT#Restrictions_and_compatibility_limitations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_RT#Restrictions_and_co... They've also dropped the requirement that vendors must provide a way for users to override secure boot: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/03/windows-10-to-make-the-secure-boot-alt-os-lock-out-a-reality/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/03/windo... They know how to boil a frog.
- phendrenad2 4y agoSlippery slope fallacy. That article is from 7 years ago. They're not boiling the frog, you've just fallen for XKCD 605. They may have dropped the requirement, but hardware vendors are still allowing loading your own keys. Because, there are more factors acting on this than just Microsoft.
- car_analogy 4y ago> Slippery slope fallacy. They literally had a requirement that ARM Windows RT devices be not user unlockable. If someone lunges at you with a knife, but fails to stab you, it is not a "slippery slope fallacy" to believe they tried to kill you. What would it take to convince you? Zero remaining unlocked computers on the market?