Video download link | md5sum ad7f9db93d6419999b7856e7338cb09f Restricted Boot Should be Abolished Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0



Summary: UEFI did not solve any real problem for the the vast majority of computer users; instead it created new problems and we need to talk about it

THIS site has devoted a lot of time (more so this past month) to sinister people who promote Microsoft schemes, but that seemingly personified an inherently technical problem. "The people that pushed UEFI on us rather than just patching BIOS are a related problem," one reader reminded us this week.

The above video revisits the ludicrous concept of 'secure' boot where Microsoft gets to determine what's "secure" or some other entity pretending to be Microsoft gets to 'legitimise' malware by labelling it "secure" (it's not), giving a false sense of "trust" or "safety".

"When it comes to trusting your operating system (or kernel), do not rely on Microsoft."How many warning signs need we see before there's a widespread demand that 'Secure' (Restricted) Boot gets abolished?

Outsourcing the concept of trust to private corporations is a really terrible idea. In the context of the network, not the booting sequence, we've seen the subject partly tackled by Gemini. According to these latest statistics, "2255 (89.0 %) capsules are self-signed, 222 (8.8 %) use the Certificate Authority Let's Encrypt" (and that's DECREASING over time) because Gemini encourages using one's own certificates and leaving them unchanged for up to a decade, relying on trust upon (or based on) first contact rather than some third party "vouching" trust. When it comes to trusting your operating system (or kernel), do not rely on Microsoft. It's a criminal, malicious company with mules and moles in the media and various other companies. They don't care about your security, they just seek to ensure Microsoft's domination over computer users everywhere. ⬆