Video download link | md5sum fa8de7ae67136fb0cf4c4ab97d0ee0ed Attacking BSD and Linux in Name of Security Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0



Summary: Microsoft's so-called "encryption" (with back doors) is the latest Trojan horse by which to prevent dual-booting with GNU/Linux (or just booting GNU/Linux at all!) and it's part of Microsoft's delaying tactics as the share of Windows rapidly decreases, giving way/rise to BSD and Apple's stuff, along with GNU/Linux and the Gentoo-based ChromeOS

THE Linux hawks already know that UEFI 'secure' boot is a scam and not a particularly new scam, either. The warnings about this approach were voiced more than 20 years ago [1, 2], but names have changed somewhat, e.g. "Pluton". The people who want us to embrace such fake 'security' are either lying or exceptionally dumb. One example of that is Matthew Garrett, who never studied security and compensates for his insecurities by defaming people who know better. No wonder such a scam is mostly promoted by people who don't even have a Bachelors degree in a computing-related discipline.

As noted in the video above, they belatedly come to grips with the fact that Microsoft's so-called "encryption" (back doors [1, 2]) is used by Microsoft against Linux. It was never about security or privacy, it's a false promise.

Chris Murphy, at ICBM's (IBM's) fake 'community', writes that "Windows 10/11 increasingly enables Bitlocker (full disk encryption)" and points out that this is causing problems for the "future of dual booting Windows and Fedora"; calling it "full disk encryption" is misleading as there are back doors. What sort of "encryption" is that? People who call it "full disk encryption" are relaying misinformation and unwittingly attack Linux, along with other "useful idiots" who pretend it's in the name of "security". It's not. It never was.

"Without antagonism, things will continue to worsen."There's now a long discussion thread about this in Phoronix, which is sponsored by AMD gifts. Don't forget that AMD is a foremost proponent of Microsoft lockdown at chip level ("Pluton"). We used to respect and cite Phoronix, but lately Phoronix became a WSL apologist. It's a site that thinks Microsoft entering Mesa is "good" (it's for WSL, i.e. for an attack on GNU/Linux).

It's also curious that ICBM (IBM) brought up this issue. ICBM has long loved TPM/Palladium, so don't expect Red Hat to put up any meaningful resistance to what Microsoft does in order to de facto ban Linux. Heck, Red Hat was the employer of the "engineer" (Garrett) who put the Trojan horse there in the first place, conflating control by Microsoft with "security". He helped Microsoft thwart antitrust action.

As MinceR put it today: "once again, we see how Microsoft "loves" Linux..."

There has been lots of evidence already that UEFI only makes security worse, not better. It also locked MinceR out of his own computer a couple of weeks ago.

Microsoft wants to herd people into Windows and then say it "supports" 'Linux' whilst in fact alluding to WSL. We need to speak out against it. Without antagonism, things will continue to worsen. ⬆