Blaze@lemmy.zip to Linux@programming.dev · 4 months ago“Something has gone seriously wrong,” dual-boot systems warn after Microsoft updatearstechnica.comexternal-linkmessage-square42fedilinkarrow-up1162arrow-down13cross-posted to: linux@lemmy.mllinux@lemmy.worldlinux@lemmy.ml
arrow-up1159arrow-down1external-link“Something has gone seriously wrong,” dual-boot systems warn after Microsoft updatearstechnica.comBlaze@lemmy.zip to Linux@programming.dev · 4 months agomessage-square42fedilinkcross-posted to: linux@lemmy.mllinux@lemmy.worldlinux@lemmy.ml
minus-squarehatedbad@lemmy.sdf.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·4 months agoMicrosoft creates secure boot: “we should be able to run whatever we want on our hardware!” Microsoft lets users install crowdstrike on their computer: “Microsoft shouldn’t let us run this on our hardware!”
minus-squaregravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·edit-24 months agoWay to miss the nuance lol What I’m saying is that if a system claims to rigorously validate code that runs in a particular sensitive domain (here, ring 0), it should actually rigorously validate code. This was a process failure at the end of the day.
Microsoft creates secure boot: “we should be able to run whatever we want on our hardware!”
Microsoft lets users install crowdstrike on their computer: “Microsoft shouldn’t let us run this on our hardware!”
Way to miss the nuance lol
What I’m saying is that if a system claims to rigorously validate code that runs in a particular sensitive domain (here, ring 0), it should actually rigorously validate code. This was a process failure at the end of the day.