Re: [OT] Re: the ghost of UEFI and Micr0$0ft
Andrei POPESCU <email@example.com> writes:
> But still, those attacks wouldn't be prevented by Secure Boot, so Nate's
> argument (Secure Boot won't improve Windows security) still stands.
That's why the whole thing seems so creepy... even if they --
currently! -- allow it to be disabled:
It really won't make computer systems much "safer" (from malware etc)
in practice, but it _does_ conveniently lay the groundwork for the
sort of locked-down no-user-control hardware ecosystem which is
fervently desired by many unsavory parties, who are most certainly not
acting with the best interests of the public in mind. Not just
Microsoft, but *AA ("closing the analogue hole isn't enough!") etc.
Happiness, n. An agreeable sensation arising from contemplating the misery of