Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by nequo 829 days ago
You can opt in or opt out as you wish. You get to decide whether the added security of only allowing signed kernel modules is the right trade-off for you. Am I missing something here?
2 comments
josephcsible 829 days ago
That's what everyone said about TPM and Secure Boot, and now you can't, e.g., play Valorant without enabling both.
link
mort96 829 days ago
In cases where you can genuinely just flip a switch and get back proper access to the machine I don't mind it that much, but these "we must restrict the user for 'security' reasons" things usually don't stay like that forever.
link
nequo 829 days ago
But this is Linux so you can use a different distribution if your current distro is daft like that.

Or do you mean that certain programs (like one mentioned by sibling) require the switch to be on?

link
mort96 829 days ago
Yeah, that's one of the ways these "optional" "security measures" often become non-optional. Android is a prime example of a system where this has already happened: sure, you can root your device (if your manufacturer allows you to), but none of the software you need.

Another way is simply for the manufacturer to lock down the bootloader/BIOS and not let you disable "secure" boot, as is also common in the Android world.

link