▲ | shawnz 4 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If the manufacturer wanted to conduct a supply chain attack on you, they wouldn't need secure boot to do it. They could just design an implant of their own using proprietary technology. So why does the presence of secure boot as a user-controlled feature affect that risk calculation? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | immibis 3 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Because manufacturers aren't trying to add surreptitious implants. They're trying to prevent you installing operating systems other than the one they get a bulk discount if they force you to have. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|