Im fine with anything that is gpl as long as its through the whole stack starting at hardware.
this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2026
148 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
81653 readers
4468 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- 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.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
An alternative to secureboot that isn't secureboot but behaves like it. Wonderful 🙄
Another Poettering "masterpiece" ready to be gobbled up by his fanbase who will flock towards the new and shiny toy that forgoes the things that actually work fine or aren't solving an actual problem with 99% of whatever it's used by. Great 🙄 🙄 🙄
EDIT:
No doubt this will be his opportunity to force everyone off grub and use systemd as the bootloader across major distros. As valid as it may be to succeed grub, surely systemd is not the answer to this.
Can't wait to not be able to VR game with my Nvidia GPU on Linux cuz they can't be arsed to properly sign their damn proprietary drivers.
The option of having a full auth trust chain would be nice for some security applications, but the implication that it could be made compulsory is terrifying.
You can already secure boot if you want. But like always, you gotta set it up yourself in a complicated manner :D
It’s Linux. In what world do you imagine there wouldn’t be 87 forks that went in a different direction.
Linux cannot be controlled, at least as it stands today.
When Linux disappears I have some fears. But jerk as he may be, he’s also incredibly effective at keeping it open.
In what world do you imagine there wouldn’t be 87 forks that went in a different direction.
In every world. Linux is not just the codebase, it's all the developer work going into it daily. Hundreds of forks and downstreams can pick whichever direction they want, most of that work will still be directed one way.
But this proposal for a full auto-chain isn’t a proposal by Linus and many thousands contributors. It’s the proposal of a commercial entity that doesn’t control Linux in any way.
Yes, this commercial entity founded by people who have a literal track record of doing exactly that
Volunteer adoption of a system found to be better by distro maintainers is not the same as forced adoption of a system distro maintainers don’t find to be better.
"Found to be better" because of commercial resources and support pouring in and outcompeting grassroots alternatives to gain market share. Do you share the same lukewarm acceptance for what chromium is doing for web browsers?
I’m not sure what we’re arguing about now, but I’m convinced it’s not the original point I was trying to make. I think both of our lives are too short to carry this one. Have a good evening.
I don't trust Microsoft, why should I start trusting IBM/Canonical or Poettering now.
If the possibility is there they will happily lock you out of your own hardware.
I've made other comments before about how we used to cheer for Google back in the 00's because they were the upstart that took on the entrenched competitors (Microsoft primarily). Look what Google has become today - the very thing we hoped they would destroy, and they are so much worse about it.
Red Hat/IBM ultimately owned by the same people as Google: shareholders. Nothing will ever stand in the way of their greed. If this technology is allowed to exist, there's no reason to think that it too will be used against our interests.
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.
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.
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
The user is able to install new certificates.
That's true today, but there's no guarantee it will be true in the future. Google is already pushing for all software running on Android to be cryptographically verified and they (Google) are the only ones that control the signing keys. This means that they intend to kill off F-droid and all other software delivered outside the Google store.
If Google is able to pull it off on Android, everyone else will try to do it on desktop OSes too - Linux included.
Can't say it's obvious how to change certificates on my motherboard. Just updated the BIOS and had to turn off SecureBoot so it could boot into my Linux install (MSI B450 Tomahawk Max).
Every bios I've used has 2 sets of certificates built in. The default one is the Microsoft production certificate and the Linux bootloader doesn't match. But their should be another certificate for open source systems that will work.
That's right. The user (or administrator if it's a work machine) installs or removes acceptable certificates into firmware database. Typically a device you buy in the past 15 years or so comes with Microsoft certificates preinstalled, but it doesn't have to stay like that.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Secureboot is worthless if the Microsoft keys are still enabled. It should only allow code that you sign yourself to boot.
load more comments
(4 replies)
This is needed. Servers need it, and it would be a nice feature to enable for personal systems. We would need to be able to build our own images with our own keys to really make this worthwhile. Especially with programs in my bin dir I’ve compiled or downloaded.
Do I trust Lennart to not do something asinine to turn this into a shit show? I do not. This would be better if it was someone who has security experience and system design cred.
I can't imagine anyone sane would hold onto the belief that it will remain just "a nice feature to enable" after looking at the historical encroachment of commercial interests in mobile phone boot chain setups. I tell you the truth that after widespread adoption this WILL turn into a "not nice feature that you cannot disable", and you can forget about enrolling your own keys as well.
Because if there's one thing Linux users think about their systems .. it's "hey why does this thing let me do what I want?"
There’s a universe of difference between changes you intended to make in your system, and changes you didn’t intend because a state actor attacked you based on your social media criticism.
Unlike with closed source software, you can always decide you don’t want your software to be secure.
What you should be worried about is not software but hardware.
Uhhhh...wha?
This would be a big deal for hardware manufacturers or product manufacturers in securing their devices. Only a tiny, tiny fraction of Linux users are just desktop jockeys.
I was referring to this
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.
What if the thing that you want is to have SecureBoot-enforced hardware attestation?
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(14 replies)
I wonder if this would allow an anti-cheat system to get acceptable trust of a system without having to access ring 0.
Of course, we'd then need the OS / kernel images to be signed. I think most gamers run stock kernels anyway.
I just don't want see the garbage that is the Android Play Store where apps refuse to run because we run an OS that isn't profitable to Google.
Anti-cheats do NOT need to be client-side… Polar is server-sided, yet it has practically killed cheating in Minecraft.
That would actually be the wrong thing to want. In an ideal system trust would always begin by the owner of the hardware, where possible, not the software or vendor they decide to trust.
First the person that bought the system should take the ownership by overwriting the previous owners keys, and from there start signing the vendors key, they decide to put their trust in. Because it is important that the system is trustworthy to the end user/owner first.
Any anti-cheat mechanism relies on not trusting the person that owns the hardware, and why would that be good?
I just don’t want see the garbage that is the Android Play Store where apps refuse to run because we run an OS that isn’t profitable to Google.
I think the possibility that this could happen is dangerously high.
Everything starts with good intentions. Everything ultimately leads to locking end users out of their personal freedoms.
Everything starts with good intentions.
No it doesn't.
When it comes to privacy, politics, and capitalism, almost nothing starts with good intentions.
Most everything starts for the short term benefit of whoever starts it and any investors putting money into it, at the expense of everyone else and ignoring any future negative consequences unless profit can be extracted from them.
It hurting people the starter doesn't like (even if it will come back to hurt the starter in the long time) is also a very important factor, though secondary to the short term profit one.
Since the user is the one doing the cheating, most likely no, unfortunately.
In the comments they clarify that is mostly targeted at servers and IoT first. In the enterprise world attestation is absolutely needed. And on personal devices? I'd be very happy if I had a secure boot chain for full disk encryption working out of the box. At least for portable devices...
I forgot already but doesn't he work for MSFT now?
I swear the moment he got a new job is when he came out with run0
He was there for a brief period. According to Wikipedia he was there from 2022-2026 and seems to have left to create his new company in early 2026.
Anyway, somebody working for Microsoft isn't proof positive that they share the values of Microsoft (unless you're in upper admin); you're not guilty by association. People generally need to work to eat in this capitalist hellscape, and FOSS doesn't tend to pay well.
view more: next ›