These default firmware settings will prevent "third-party"-MSFT-signed EFI binaries from loading - gee, I wonder why that distinction is suddenly necessary, too? :)
In my view and experience, the threat model that Secure Boot and similar schemes to establishing a root of trust to assure that "noone (esp. not the owner) has tampered with this device" tries to protect against is VERY rarely relevant (to the owner of said device). The times that I have been inconvenienced or even prevented by that stuff from getting the software I, the owner of the device, want installed onto hardware that I paid good money for at a store/vendor have been numerous, however.
I donate to the EFF because they pay Cory, and Cory attempts to contribute towards keeping Big Tech at bay. Let's not argue about Big Tech intent here; they would conquer the world if they could. The evidence around this thesis is...robust.
(recent example of Microsoft blocking Firefox from FIDO2 auth in a very public way: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38502340)
Yes, but on ARM.
https://openrt.gitbook.io/open-surfacert/common/boot-sequenc...
https://openrt.gitbook.io/open-surfacert/common/boot-sequenc...
Fortunately, that was forestalled on x86. Who knows if they'll ever stop signing the Linux Shim for "security reasons."
Also, recent laptops have started shipping where 3rd party OSes are blocked by default. https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/60248.html https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32066919
In my opinion, Cory is a treasure, a rare voice that consistent advocates for a development where humanity at large has the freedom to pioneer & advance the open electronic frontiers.
Another contemporary issue: the Y2K scare.
The whole Paladium trusted boot/"known OS environment"/etc stuff could very easily have gone down the path of "This hardware only boots Windows." Secure Boot has been a pain for a while, though at least you can turn it off.
Nobody at the time (as far as OEMs) seemed to care the slightest bit about Linux, so the concern of "Only boots a measured Windows install, for your own security" seemed rather worth worrying about.
You know, it's really easy to just ignore articles that you're not interested in. Yet you chose to respond. Why?
And your accusation - he was wrong about something 20 years ago - even if true, so what? I've been wrong about a thing or two in 20 years. And, while I know that pretty much everyone else also has been, I don't keep track of what people said 20 years ago so that I can point to it to show the world how wrong that person was.
This almost seems like it's personal for you. If so, why?