3 ms·

Because there was pushback against it. Originally with Windows 8 certification MS didn't care if OEMs had an option to disable Secure Boot or not. After the ini

Because there was pushback against it. Originally with Windows 8 certification MS didn't care if OEMs had an option to disable Secure Boot or not. After the initial outcry an option was added. They then tried again with Windows 10. And this only applies to x86 based machines, ARM models have secure boot stuck on since RT launched. 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... Did secure boot stop those malware attacks? Somehow despite secure boot being enabled as default for like 10 years I still routinely hear about XYZ getting hit by ransomware so I'm guessing no. Software freedom can help IRL too.

smileybarry 4y ago
Of course Secure Boot wouldn’t magically stop all malware, it’s one security measure to stop bootkits and kernel tampering.
rollcat 4y ago
> Did secure boot stop those malware attacks? Secure boot is designed to stop a class of APTs, it is by itself ineffective at preventing malware infection. > Software freedom can help IRL too. I never argued against software freedom (or freedom in general) - quite the opposite. But I am disturbed whenever free software advocates paint freedom in one-dimensional terms. You can have hardware that is designed to compromise one of your freedoms, but simultaneously reinforce another. And you can often still utilise that hardware to empower the user, without any compromises. However the rhetoric keeps boiling down to "secure = locked down = non-free = evil". Thank you for the article.