The Growing Role of UEFI Secure Boot in Linux Distributions

I developed a distinct case of eyestrain from the eye-rolling this article induced.

Nothing the author said was actually 'wrong' -- as in, the treatment was pretty factual -- but he sure glossed over a bunch of... less than wonderful... stuff in the real world of actual UEFI Secure Boot implementation.

@BernardSwiss - That's because it's cleverly written. It seduces you to make assumptions - just like a magician does.

"Malware developers have increased their attempts to attack the pre-boot environment because operating system and antivirus software vendors have hardened their code. "

That may be true, but does it especially apply to Linux?

".. combating attacks and security obstacles against malware is a growing priority for a broad community of vendors, developers and end users."

That's close to a tautology, but it's really the onset to the next paragraph:

"This trend provides a useful example of how (..) (UEFI) technology addresses shared challenges in ways that help bring better products and experiences to market".

Now we're lured into thinking that UEFI is closely associated with security .. and may be ONLY that. Even more, that it is a logical, essential step and may be even instrumental. It also connects "UEFI" and "Secure boot" tightly together.

In short, it lures you into saying A, B until you're forced to admit C. Bottom line is: hit the break on B ("This trend").

The real problem isn't UEFI, or even Secure Boot (both perfectly reasonable ideas, and arguably necessary ideas whose time had come) but rather, the contrived, interoperability-hampering way Microsoft cannily pushed it's adoption on consumer hardware. The article slides right around even alluding to this.

The other problematic aspect was the {ahem} coy {ahem} , eyes-averted slipping around the implications inherent in the decisions by vendors to "usually make appropriate choices" whether to provide any user (ie. "owner") control over UEFI Secure Boot, characterizing these as mere "practical considerations".

- - - - -

This article ends up being something of a whitewash -- I would have had much more respect for a more candid, "mistakes were made, but we still can make/are making this work out for best" type of article.

But perhaps I'm not applying the right yard-stick... Ultimately, this piece strikes me as a bit of industry politics (conceivably some sort of olive branch?), than as a straight-forward overview of the technology and its future prospects.

It's how spin doctors work! Emphasizing the benefits and downplaying or (like here) completely ignoring any counter arguments. It's not their goal to provide a "straight-forward overview", it's targeted to spinning your head in (as far as they are concerned) right direction.

A good one is hard to tear apart, but it helps if you know the tricks.