"Secure Boot" is a Security Problem, Not a Solution
Last month: Our Three Lawsuits Against Microsofters Are About to Become a Lot More Relevant to GNU/Linux
Hours ago:
So Microsoft booster Chris Titus does not trust Microsoft with "secure" boot. Why would he?
Heck, you know something is very wrong when even Microsofters don't like this and Microsoft staff admits it is a problem. Even Microsoft Lunduke boosts Titus (not surprisingly they like each other and boost one another). He has just said: "Certificate Signing Authorities are, by design, a massive security vulnerability which relegates overwhelming control to rarely regulated centralized powers."
The only thing worse than "Secure Boot" is the people who promote it. Garrett [1, 2], for example, promoted this for Microsoft, then attacked critics of it for over a decade, then harassed and sent them threats over it, then attacked their family members, then filed abusive SLAPPs against them, and when the SLAPPs backfired he sought to gain some 'firepower' from Microsoft, even the violent Serial Strangler from Microsoft. That's how horrible those people are. They're basically like a Mafia, they're mobsters.
These people don't try to improve security but to undermine security. Those are people who mock the legal process and fail to meet Orders from Judges at the High Court. In other words, they don't care what's legal and flout legal obligations. █