35
Grub and the Microsoft Ransomware
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2025
35 points (94.9% liked)
Linux
57274 readers
774 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Microsoft secure boot is 100% made to be a pain in the ass for Linux users. It doesn't add any security, but is instead a huge added unnecessary risk factor for data loss for users.
I don't know which distro you're using, but in Fedora and Debian it's pretty easy to install the signed version of grub and the signed shime and get full secure boot in Linux. No setup needed.
It technically does add security in that it prevents a load of attack vectors that would dodge most anti malware tools (i.e. the ones before the anti malware tool can start)
But you're right in that the execution of the idea is unnecessarily painful for Linux
OK so when did you hear of an actual successful attack that could have been avoided if the user had used secure boot?
Well boot sector viruses used to be all the rage in the 90s, they're entirely impossible under secure boot
Malware rootkits were a pretty big problem about a decade ago, I understand the techniques those mostly used are more or less impossible under secure boot now too
Then we could go into all the government and adjacent industry use cases where state-sponsored targeted attacks are a real concern. Measures like filling USB ports with super glue and desoldering microphones on company laptops is not unheard of in those circles, so blocking unknown bootloaders from executing is an absolute no brainer.
Saying it provides no security is just not true. Your front door isn't only secure if someone has failed to break in
Secure Boot keys are considered compromised.
https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/07/secure-boot-is-completely-compromised-on-200-models-from-5-big-device-makers/
If you are recommending secure boot as a security measure, you should stop doing so.
I'm not recommending it, I'm describing why saying it adds no security is silly.
The keys being compromised on some motherboards doesn't mean the whole concept is suddenly inert for every single user
If everyone has a copy of my passwords and authenticator keys, that wouldn't suddenly make 2 factor auth a compromised idea.
Hell, even if you are one of those people running a machine with the compromised keys, it's still going to block malware that was written before the keys were leaked unless malware authors have also figured out time travel.
Not sure how this relates. If you're saying it was a good idea at the outset, then sure.... If the keys hadn't almost all been leaked by AMI and Phoenix. MS was supposed to have created a Microsoft Certified hardware vendor program for this, which fell apart pretty quickly.
Secure Boot is a joke, both practically (there are many, many tools in use to bypass it) and in my professional circles, it is considered obsolete like WEP. My audit controls for Secure Boot demand that an endpoint management solution like InTune is deployed.
You don't have to take my word for it, obviously. I'm not trying to tell you how to live your life.