• ferret@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      2 days ago

      If you have secure boot off OR don’t have a bios password you are just as insecure as this “vulnerability” would make you

        • ferret@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          So don’t use it? How much or how little actual security secure boot provides is a topic that has been discussed to oblivion. I brought it up to make a point of how badly people are overreacting about the severity of this latest framework news.

          • Tenderizer78@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            20 hours ago

            I still have no idea what secure-boot really does and this was me turning the metaphorical secure-boot dial while checking the crowd to see whether they start gasping in horror.

            • WFH@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 days ago

              I believe it only means “I paid Microsoft to get a certificate”, so it does absolutely nothing for security.

      • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        A legitimate backdoor is still a backdoor. If you have security measures and a way to bypass them, you don’t have security measures.

        • toothbrush@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Its not a backdoor, because secure boot was never about safety to begin with. Its just a piece of security theater, whose primary use is more control for microsoft. “Secure” boot only boots software signed with a microsoft key, thats the “security”. Microsoft also allows linux distributions to be signed, but nothing is technically stopping them from just refusing, for " security reasons", and on some systems secure boot cant be turned off. So it being bustable is a good thing. There are other ways to protect devices from physical access, but generally, if attackers have physical access to your computer, then its compromised, secure boot or not. Framework just didnt want to play along.

          • Auli@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            Can’t you add your own signing key or the distro can. I know you can remove the existing keys.

        • unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          But a “backdoor” which is swung wide open if you don’t secure it isn’t really a backdoor. It’s more akin to an open window.

      • ZeDoTelhado@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Fixed on bios, but from what I see, the dbx part is still missing in some models. They are working on it at least

          • Donaldist@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            In a way its understandable: It looks flashy, “hackery” and is a complete departure from the Windows or Mac GUI which avoids an “uncanny valley” of usability. Also it is pretty easy to install (i would argue, even more easy than many mainstream distributions), couple that with the positive PR that it got by some Youtube people and you have a road to success for this distro.

            • LiveLM@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              pretty easy to install (i would argue, even more easy than many mainstream distributions)

              Last I poked at it, it had no Live environment. I really how it got so popular if people can’t even try it before wiping their machine. VMs?

              • Donaldist@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                Why? Just ride the lightning and live the hacker lifestyle!

                (Just kidding… perhaps those people have an image of their Windows installation on some external HDD)

      • rozodru@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        they sponsored Omarchy and Hyprland. one a glorified dotfiles arch “distro” built by DHH who is pretty much a fascist and Hyprland a buggy neon mess of a WM built by a transphobic fascist.

        So yeah, they’re not having a good time right now.

        • tehn00bi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          But what is left for me to use? I only use products that primagen talks about. /s #l33t

        • bigmamoth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          2 days ago

          ??? It s software? How it s facist or transphobic of whatever. If tomorrow linus start doing bad stuff I won’t say don’t use Linux???

          • rozodru@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            because they’re built by individuals who are those things. that’s the controversy. that’s it.

            the whole thing is people are upset that Framework sponsored those things because they don’t like paying Framework for their machines who in turn then give money to people they feel are facists.

            • bigmamoth@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              To me they give to a project that have individual that hold controversial opinion rather than to a controversial individual but I can understand the logic.

              But tbh I would rather be pissed that a company would finnanve other while they sell their stuff for a premium price

              • curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                If the individual is the only one in charge of the project, and controls the money, there really isnt a difference.