3 ms·

You can on x86 machines, but AIUI they require ARM machines that ship with Windows to have secure boot permanently enabled. That hasn't been much of a factor so

You can on x86 machines, but AIUI they require ARM machines that ship with Windows to have secure boot permanently enabled. That hasn't been much of a factor so far given the false starts that Windows ARM has gone through, but with Qualcomm set to launch their Apple M-series competitor soon it might start to actually matter.

throwaway345353 3y ago
All of this is moot if essential services like government or banking require root of trust attestation that is only available on windows. New chips already have Microsoft's pluton core.
- charcircuit 3y ago
  Which is why Linux distros should be investing heavily in security now so they can prove to manufacturers / Microsoft / the government that they are secure (compared to other consumer operating systems) to avoid a future like that.
  - imglorp 3y ago
    It's pretty hard to compete with open source plus byte-reproducible builds for anyone serious about security. Not only is MS neither of those, it's also the premier malware target and a voracious surveillance instrument on its own.
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      >compete with open source Open source doesn't necessarily imply it is secure. Security isn't free and open source projects can struggle funding such development. >byte-reproducible builds This is mostly a party trick. Meanwhile the system is one curl | sh away from having all its cookies stolen, files cryptolocked, mic spied on, keylogger installed, clipboard sniffed, etc. Reproducible builds can't save you from insecure design which my comment was referring to investing in fixing and is what this patch being highlighted in the article is doing. >it's also the premier malware target Having a large market share is why. If Linux overnight gained a ton of marketshare the malware situation would be worse than windows.
    - wmf 3y ago
      That's true if your definition of security is "I hope we found all the vulns" from the 1990s. Today we expect defense in depth and Linux is behind Windows in sandboxing, VBS, etc.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    Linux distros should not have to prove anything to Microsoft for any reason. It's a major failure that our governments ever let a major operating system vendor get into a position where they can gatekeep other operating systems.
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      Linux distros are still free to create their own CA and convince manufacturers to trust it.
      - rbanffy 3y ago
        What would prevent Microsoft from requiring its removal for Windows installs?
anonymfus 3y ago
Technically correct, but obsolete. Windows 10 run on ARM and had that requirement that you talk about, Windows 11 runs on ARM64 without that requirement.

throwaway345353 3y ago

All of this is moot if essential services like government or banking require root of trust attestation that is only available on windows. New chips already have Microsoft's pluton core.

charcircuit 3y ago
Which is why Linux distros should be investing heavily in security now so they can prove to manufacturers / Microsoft / the government that they are secure (compared to other consumer operating systems) to avoid a future like that.
- imglorp 3y ago
  It's pretty hard to compete with open source plus byte-reproducible builds for anyone serious about security. Not only is MS neither of those, it's also the premier malware target and a voracious surveillance instrument on its own.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    >compete with open source Open source doesn't necessarily imply it is secure. Security isn't free and open source projects can struggle funding such development. >byte-reproducible builds This is mostly a party trick. Meanwhile the system is one curl | sh away from having all its cookies stolen, files cryptolocked, mic spied on, keylogger installed, clipboard sniffed, etc. Reproducible builds can't save you from insecure design which my comment was referring to investing in fixing and is what this patch being highlighted in the article is doing. >it's also the premier malware target Having a large market share is why. If Linux overnight gained a ton of marketshare the malware situation would be worse than windows.
  - wmf 3y ago
    That's true if your definition of security is "I hope we found all the vulns" from the 1990s. Today we expect defense in depth and Linux is behind Windows in sandboxing, VBS, etc.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- josephcsible 3y ago
  Linux distros should not have to prove anything to Microsoft for any reason. It's a major failure that our governments ever let a major operating system vendor get into a position where they can gatekeep other operating systems.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    Linux distros are still free to create their own CA and convince manufacturers to trust it.
    - rbanffy 3y ago
      What would prevent Microsoft from requiring its removal for Windows installs?

anonymfus 3y ago

Technically correct, but obsolete. Windows 10 run on ARM and had that requirement that you talk about, Windows 11 runs on ARM64 without that requirement.