The creator of systemd (Lennart Poettering) has recently created a new company dedicated to bringing hardware attestation to open source software.
What might this entail? A previous blog post could provide some clues:
So, let’s see how I would build a desktop OS. The trust chain matters, from the boot loader all the way to the apps. This means all code that is run must be cryptographically validated before it is run. This is in fact where big distributions currently fail pretty badly. This is a fault of current Linux distributions though, not of SecureBoot in general.
If this technology is successful, the end result could be that we would see our Linux laptops one day being as locked down as an Iphone or Android device.
There are lots of others who are equally concerned about this possibility: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46784572
Because if there’s one thing Linux users think about their systems … it’s “hey why does this thing let me do what I want?”
Uhhhh…wha?
This would be a big deal for hardware manufacturers or product manufacturers in securing their devices. Only a tiny, tiny fraction of Linux users are just desktop jockeys.
I was referring to this
If this technology is successful, the end result could be that we would see our Linux laptops one day being as locked down as an Iphone or Android device.
What if the thing that you want is to have SecureBoot-enforced hardware attestation?
What if it was just an off the cuff joke?
This is too many dependent probabilities
That would be beneficial to users as well. I’m not understanding the downside here.
I guess you’re not thinking of “locked down” in terms of independent developers finding the iOS and Android “play by our rules and be distributed thru our app store or we’ll make it hard for users to run your software” to be a barrier to distribution.
Bruh…that’s not even the point of the company or what he’s talking about. You’re being paranoid, first off.
Second, you want secure devices? You can’t have that right now with Linux very easily. There is no chain of trust coming from the hardware aside from TPM, which is kind of a joke. This guy wants to make a standard way of certifying a chain of trust which would allow an ecosystem of devices to maintain some semblance of trust amongst itself and other devices. This would make things like networks, edge devices, forward deployed hardware, and running sensitive data in less than secure locations more secure.
Last, if you’re going to be paranoid, at least educate yourself on the subject. Not a single person who is even vaguely familiar with what this entails is thinking “Oh they’re going to lock all our devices rawrawrawr”. That’s just ridiculous. That could happen now, but…you seeing that out in the components world anywhere? Absolutely not. Because it’s no desirable, and that’s NOT WHAT HES EVEN TALKING ABOUT.
🤦
Sorry but this whole thing is just snake-oil.
You can verify and sign your whole trust chain down to the last shared library and it doesn’t matter when you don’t know what the binary blobs on your TPM / CPU / BIOS / NIC are doing.
The only guarantee to a secure system is openness an all of that signing won’t help you there.
Right, so because of your limited knowledge and understanding of what the actual needs of an entire industry are, it’s all snake oil. Cool.
Meanwhile I’d just love a way to box up a custom machine, use something what he’s building, ship it to site, and have it run without issue and have some piece of mind a competitor didn’t try to gank the data over USB, or bypass the identity of the motherboard that SHOULD have boot blocks in place, or maybe someone just rips the SSD right out of it and tries to boot it elsewhere.
Fuck the rest of ALL that and the practical needs of security experts and system builders because YOU are worried that it somehow magically it’s used for all kinds of other nefarious things.
Cool. Cool.
I don’t trust Microsoft, why should I start trusting IBM/Canonical or Poettering now.
If the possibility is there they will happily lock you out of your own hardware.
I’ve made other comments before about how we used to cheer for Google back in the 00’s because they were the upstart that took on the entrenched competitors (Microsoft primarily). Look what Google has become today - the very thing we hoped they would destroy, and they are so much worse about it.
Red Hat/IBM ultimately owned by the same people as Google: shareholders. Nothing will ever stand in the way of their greed. If this technology is allowed to exist, there’s no reason to think that it too will be used against our interests.
The option of having a full auth trust chain would be nice for some security applications, but the implication that it could be made compulsory is terrifying.
It’s Linux. In what world do you imagine there wouldn’t be 87 forks that went in a different direction.
Linux cannot be controlled, at least as it stands today.
When Linus disappears I have some fears. But jerk as he may be, he’s also incredibly effective at keeping it open.
In what world do you imagine there wouldn’t be 87 forks that went in a different direction.
In every world. Linux is not just the codebase, it’s all the developer work going into it daily. Hundreds of forks and downstreams can pick whichever direction they want, most of that work will still be directed one way.
But this proposal for a full auth-chain isn’t a proposal by Linus and many thousands contributors. It’s the proposal of a commercial entity that doesn’t control Linux in any way.
deleted by creator
You can already secure boot if you want. But like always, you gotta set it up yourself in a complicated manner :D
Of course I use SecureBoot, if you know how to set it up it has no inconvenients ! But that doesn’t go all the way up to the apps !
Who decides what SecureBoot considers trustworthy? If SecureBoot is controlled by someone else then it can be used against the user. The aversion to SecureBoot is justified.
It’s configurable.
This is needed. Servers need it, and it would be a nice feature to enable for personal systems. We would need to be able to build our own images with our own keys to really make this worthwhile. Especially with programs in my bin dir I’ve compiled or downloaded.
Do I trust Lennart to not do something asinine to turn this into a shit show? I do not. This would be better if it was someone who has security experience and system design cred.
An alternative to secureboot that isn’t secureboot but behaves like it. Wonderful 🙄
Another Poettering “masterpiece” ready to be gobbled up by his fanbase who will flock towards the new and shiny toy that forgoes the things that actually work fine or aren’t solving an actual problem with 99% of whatever it’s used by. Great 🙄 🙄 🙄
EDIT:
No doubt this will be his opportunity to force everyone off grub and use systemd as the bootloader across major distros. As valid as it may be to succeed grub, surely systemd is not the answer to this.
Oh wow. I thought I couldn’t despise that piece of shit any more than I already did. Fuck you, Lennart Poettering, may you burn in some fiery place in the afterlife you useless corporate lickspittle.
In the comments they clarify that is mostly targeted at servers and IoT first. In the enterprise world attestation is absolutely needed. And on personal devices? I’d be very happy if I had a secure boot chain for full disk encryption working out of the box. At least for portable devices…
Amutable are a gaggle of fucks
Im fine with anything that is gpl as long as its through the whole stack starting at hardware.
I forgot already but doesn’t he work for MSFT now?
I swear the moment he got a new job is when he came out with run0
He was there for a brief period. According to Wikipedia he was there from 2022-2026 and seems to have left to create his new company in early 2026.
The anti MS morons who don’t understand secure boot and just regurgitating we hate this because it’s associated with them are out 🙄
