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
[โ€“] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The thing is in such a case secureboot doesn't help and is unnecessary. Secureboot only does anything for the concept of "trusted suppliers".

If the system has available signing keys for itself, well, hypothetical malware could sign itself using those same keys The OS security mechanisms are the only things protecting that, and in which case the signature validation is redundant.

You can have trusted boot, e.g. LUKS volume sealed to TPM PCRs, but secureboot just doesnt make sense as a mechanism for a user to only trust themselves.

[โ€“] nyan@lemmy.cafe 1 points 1 day ago

Thing is, that means you don't really own the hardware that you buy, because a corporation is dictating what you can do with it even though it doesn't belong to them. Most of us consider that unacceptable.