Ok, so I am not an expert, and I am not the OP. But my understanding is that Secure Boot is checking with a relatively small list of trustworthy signing certificates to make sure that the OS and hardware are what they claim to be on boot. One of those certificates belongs to a Microsoft application called Shim, which can be updated regularly as new stuff comes out. And technically you can whitelist other certificates, too, but I have no idea how you might do that.

The problem is, there's no real way to get around the reality that you're trusting Microsoft to not be compromised, to not go evil, to not misuse their ubiquity and position of trust as a way to depress competition, etc. It's a single point of failure that's presents a massive and very attractive target to attackers, since it could be used to intentionally do what CrowdStrike did accidentally last week.

And it's not necessarily proven that it can do what it claims to do, either. In fact, it might be a quixotic and ultimately impossible task to try and prevent boot attacks from UEFI.

But OP might have other reasons in mind, I dunno.

Probably too late, but just to complement what others have said. The UEFI is responsible for loading the boot software thst runs when the computer is turned on. In theory, some malware that wants to make itself persistent and avoid detection could replace/change the boot software to inject itself there.

Secure boot is sold as a way to prevent this. The way it works, at high level, is that the UEFI has a set of trusted keys that it uses to verify the boot software it loads. So, on boot, the UEFI check that the boot software it's loading is signed by one of these keys. If the siganture check fails, it will refuse to load the software since it was clearly tampered with.

So far so good, so what's the problem? The problem is, who picks the keys that the UEFI trusts? By default, the trusted keys are going to be the keys of the big tech companies. So you would get the keys from Microsoft, Apple, Google, Steam, Canonical, etc, i.e. of the big companies making OSes. The worry here is that this will lock users into a set of approved OSes and will prevent any new companies from entering the field. Just imagine telling a not very technical user that to install your esoteric distro they need to disable something called secure boot hahaha.

And then you can start imagining what would happen if companies start abusing this, like Microsoft and/or Apple paying to make sure only their OSes load by default. To be clear, I'm not saying this is happening right now. But the point is that this is a technology with a huge potential for abuse. Some people, myself included, believe that this will result in personal computers moving towards a similar model to the one used in mobile devices and video game consoles where your device, by default, is limited to run only approved software which would be terrible for software freedom.

Do note that, at least for now, you can disable the feature or add custom keys. So a technical user can bypass these restrictions. But this is yet another barrier a user has to bypass to get to use their own computer as they want. And even if we as technical users can bypass this, this will result in us being fucked indirectly. The best example of this are the current Attestation APIs in Android (and iOS, but iOS is such a closed environment that it's just beating a dead horse hahahah). In theory, you can root and even degoogle (some) android devices. But in practice, this will result in several apps (banks in particular, but more apps too) to stop working because they detect a modified device/OS. So while my device can technically be opened, in practice I have no choice but to continue using Google's bullshit. They can afford to do this because 99% of users will just run the default configuration they are provided, so they are ok with losing the remaining users.

But at least we are stopping malware from corrupting boot right? Well, yes, assuming correct implementations. But as you can see from the article that's not a given. But even if it works as advertised, we have to ask ourselves how much does this protect us in practice. For your average Joe, malware that can access user space is already enough to fuck you over. The most common example is ransonware that will just encrypt your personal files wothout needing to mess with the OS or UEFI at all. Similarly a keylogger can do its thing without messing with boot. Etc, etc. For an average user all this secure boot thing is just security theater, it doesn't stop the real security problems you will encounter in practice. So, IMO it's just not worth it given the potential for abuse and how useless it is.

It's worth mentioning that the equation changes for big companies and governments. In their case, other well funded agents are willing to invest a lot of resources to create very sofisticated malware. Like the malware used to attack the nuclear program plants in Iran. For them, all this may be worth it to lock down their software as much as possible. But they are playing and entirely different game than the rest of us. And their concerns should not infect our day to day lives.

It is based on the assumption that every piece of code in the entire stack from the UEFI firmware to the operating system userspace is free of vulnerabilities

Yes, surely randoms on Lemmy know better than Microsoft and the NSA in regards to security.

industrial control and enterprise networks

That's doing a lot of work here.

Yes, it's important in certain situations, but for consumer devices, it's just another thing that can go wrong when using alternative operating systems. Regular users don't have the physical risk these other systems do, and making it more difficult for users to install more secure operating systems goes against the bigger threat.

Linux is compatible with Secure Boot (source: I exclusively run Linux, and use Secure Boot on my systems), but some distros or manufacturers screw it up. For example, Google Pixel devices warn you about alternative ROMs on boot, and this makes GrapheneOS look like sketchy software, when it's really just AOSP with security patches on top (i.e. more secure than what ships with the device). The boot is still secure, it's just that the signature doesn't match what the phone is looking for.

It's just FUD on consumer devices, but it's totally valid in other contexts. If I was running a data center or enterprise, you bet I'd make sure everything was protected with secure boot. But if I run into any problems on personal devices, I'm turning it off. Context matters.

They were always a pretty cheap brand IMO, but pretty reliable.

Source: typing this on an Acer monitor that I've had for... 10 years? It kind of looks like crap, but it works and no dead pixels, so that's cool.

This needs to be a thing

Send yaml

I had dell pc refuse to boot Linux mint because of secure boot