The reference implementation is not the same as knowing which code runs on "your" hardware and having all keys from "your" hardware. If you are protected by a steel door but you don't have the keys, you are not safe, you are imprisoned.
This seems like a ridiculous argument. There is a fully source open source secure boot implementation, that if you have concerns about it you can fully audit, just as you can fully audit your current setup if you wanted to - but almost certainly have not.
So you are suggesting me to audit an implementation which I do not necessarily run and there's no way to know if I do. What's the point? How will it help?
The code running on my hardware is open, so anybody from the community can audit it and I have a possibility to verify that this is what I run at least by reflashing it. And I did reflash it. This approach is getting more reliable with more software becoming reproducible.
> So you are suggesting me to audit an implementation which I do not necessarily run and there's no way to know if I do. What's the point? How will it help?
No, I'm pointing out your, what seems to fundamentally be contrarian, alternative method that you are preferring because it is 'open', is no more secure than the coreboot secureboot implementation. Your concern seems to be based on the idea that the coreboot secureboot implemetnation could have sus code in their, but that is equally true for your heads setup. Unless you audit both, or pay to have both audited, either could have problem code.
Your position is an irrational inconsistency.
> The code running on my hardware is open, so anybody from the community can audit it and I have a possibility to verify that this is what I run at least by reflashing it. And I did reflash it. This approach is getting more reliable with more software becoming reproducible.