Outsourcing is Not Security, Outsourcing is an Added Risk
What sane person wants Microsoft to control whether one can or cannot boot into GNU/Linux?
SO far this week we've seen several dozens of articles in the media (press coverage online) about what a scam "secure boot" actually is. No reasonable person would still insist that it is about security. It ought to be called "won't boot" [1, 2], not "secure boot".
In a similar vein, "secure" connections where the supposedly "secure" assurances come from a third party (not Microsoft but a cartel that includes GAFAM and the Linux Foundation) ought to be rejected. We already have some cautionary tales, such as millions of revoked certificates causing outages (revoked after being issued). It caused problems for clients of ours at the time (at work). It caused lots of wastes time and stress, for no added security.
Thankfully, Geminispace is quickly moving away from all that. As per today's report from Lupa, only "51 (1.8 %) [of capsules] use the Certificate Authority Let's Encrypt" compared to over 100 just a month ago.
Security does not mean outsourcing of "trust". Ask millions of users who trusted Microsoft and Windows Update to manage their "secure" boot what it did to their Linux partitions, which they could no longer access. How on Earth is that security???
Fake security is like fake flowers. See what Andy recently wrote about Clown Computing because it covers that too. █
