you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -12 points 1 year ago (20 children)
  • [–] 30 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    If you have secure boot off OR don’t have a bios password you are just as insecure as this “vulnerability” would make you

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So don’t use it? How much or how little actual security secure boot provides is a topic that has been discussed to oblivion. I brought it up to make a point of how badly people are overreacting about the severity of this latest framework news.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] [S] 11 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    This has been fixed. Check rest of the article.

    mm was placed for an legitimate purpose.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    A legitimate backdoor is still a backdoor. If you have security measures and a way to bypass them, you don't have security measures.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Its not a backdoor, because secure boot was never about safety to begin with. Its just a piece of security theater, whose primary use is more control for microsoft. "Secure" boot only boots software signed with a microsoft key, thats the "security". Microsoft also allows linux distributions to be signed, but nothing is technically stopping them from just refusing, for " security reasons", and on some systems secure boot cant be turned off. So it being bustable is a good thing. There are other ways to protect devices from physical access, but generally, if attackers have physical access to your computer, then its compromised, secure boot or not. Framework just didnt want to play along.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    they sponsored Omarchy and Hyprland. one a glorified dotfiles arch "distro" built by DHH who is pretty much a fascist and Hyprland a buggy neon mess of a WM built by a transphobic fascist.

    So yeah, they're not having a good time right now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    ????? It s software? How it s facist or transphobic of whatever. If tomorrow linus start doing bad stuff I won't say don't use Linux????

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    because they're built by individuals who are those things. that's the controversy. that's it.

    the whole thing is people are upset that Framework sponsored those things because they don't like paying Framework for their machines who in turn then give money to people they feel are facists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    To me they give to a project that have individual that hold controversial opinion rather than to a controversial individual but I can understand the logic.

    But tbh I would rather be pissed that a company would finnanve other while they sell their stuff for a premium price

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment