3 ms·

How is that any different. Even every single Linux user I know has bought a laptop and fired it up at least once before subverting the boot process to install U

How is that any different. Even every single Linux user I know has bought a laptop and fired it up at least once before subverting the boot process to install Ubuntu right off the bat. So, let's assume 99.999% of consumers will boot their laptop as soon as they get it. okay, we're still in the exact same boat we've been in. Unless I'm missing something... >which subsequently (and quite coincidentally i'm sure) have bugs in their update procedure. Given the multitude of bugs in various UEFI impls so far, I would say that this is a fairly legitimate concern. Especially as I'm assuming most people like you or I are likely to just disable SecureBoot altogether and never properly "test out" enrollment.

AnIrishDuck 13y ago
> Even every single Linux user I know has bought a laptop and fired it up at least once before subverting the boot process to install Ubuntu right off the bat. Now imagine there's an option in the UEFI BIOS: * Revert to trust-on-boot mode. WARNING: this may expose you to attacks by malware.
- drivebyacct2 13y ago
  Again, how is this any different than just letting the user enroll a key? Or using one signed by a supported key, or using one with a shimloader already ready to go? I mean, I guess as a convenience mechanism, but then again, why not just disable it and be done with it. Maybe a chance that would make more sense to me would be to have an option: * Extract SecureBoot keys from bootloader/kernel whatever and be able to specify your own kernel or what not. But then again, that's basically what you get via your own key enrollment ;)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]