| ▲ | michaelt a day ago | |||||||
I mean, Linux has perfectly good FDE - just the user has to type in their password at boot, no TPM involved. And it's been possible to get Windows-style self-unlocking FDE for 10+ years, such as by using Ubuntu Core - it just costs a bit, and most users aren't willing to pay $$$ to type one less password. The design of the TPM makes much more sense for a closed-source operating system, where making it impossible to run a non-microsoft-signed OS protects you against rootkits. Open source OSes don't get that benefit, and the remaining benefits are very minor (and come with big downsides) so I can see why open source developers weren't in a hurry. | ||||||||
| ▲ | novafunc a day ago | parent [-] | |||||||
> The design of the TPM makes much more sense for a closed-source operating system I don't think that's the case. The great thing about TPMs is that they measure what's on your system. As long as you modify things properly, your changes get measured and stored in the TPM. Secure Boot is the more closed-sourced way. By default it relies on Microsoft keys unless you enroll your own and sign your stuff. | ||||||||
| ||||||||