this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2026
192 points (97.1% liked)

Technology

81710 readers
3558 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
192
The creator of systemd wants to bring SecureBoot-enforced hardware attestation to Linux (0pointer.net)
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world
82 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The creator of systemd (Lennart Poettering) has recently created a new company dedicated to bringing hardware attestation to open source software.

What might this entail? A previous blog post could provide some clues:

So, let's see how I would build a desktop OS. The trust chain matters, from the boot loader all the way to the apps. This means all code that is run must be cryptographically validated before it is run. This is in fact where big distributions currently fail pretty badly. This is a fault of current Linux distributions though, not of SecureBoot in general.

If this technology is successful, the end result could be that we would see our Linux laptops one day being as locked down as an Iphone or Android device.

There are lots of others who are equally concerned about this possibility: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46784572

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tabular@lemmy.world 47 points 2 days ago (9 children)

Who decides what SecureBoot considers trustworthy? If SecureBoot is controlled by someone else then it can be used against the user. The aversion to SecureBoot is justified.

[–] lazynooblet@lazysoci.al 19 points 2 days ago (7 children)

Secureboot uses certificates to verify integrity. The user is able to install new certificates. So I'd say it is the user? I'm not an expert though and their may be hardware out there that doesn't allow new certificates.

[–] protogen420@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

AFAIK, the allowing the user to install and remove certificates is a x86_64 thing only, arm will happilly fuck you over, x86_64 UEFI implementations ARE REQUIRED TO add that feature to be spec compliant, this was a intentional decision by Intel and AMD to keep x86_64 open to new OS and not locked down to Windows which could one day be a sinking ship, so that x86_64 would not be at the mercy of Microsoft's success and attachment to the platform

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I have seen some platforms locked to Microsoft first party keys only. They boiled the frog by starting with it being optional, able to enroll your own keys, and Microsoft signing third party bootloaders, but now there exists a Microsoft-only certificate regime that at least some vendors have selected, or at least made a selectable option. The pitch being that Windows shops that don't trust their users can be assured they aren't deviating from the blessed windows os their IT trusts.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)