You think that BlueSky users scare people, and then you admit to being part of a community that consistently produces mass murderers. You live in a severely fucked up funhouse mirror type of world.
Tell someone you are an active BlueSky users and they will assume you vote a certain way. Tell someone you participated in 4chan at any point in its history and they immediately become afraid that you will go on a killing spree.
You had enough awareness to post AC because this post is so absurdly dumb, but you still felt compelled to post it anyway. Hmmm. . .
1st gen Paperwhite is in the list of devices losing support. DeDRM effectively neutered on it, since you will no longer be able to buy/rent books for it after May 20.
That was actually my thought. It wasn't until I got to the mention of Twitter than I figured out they didn't mean X11.
I did think switching from X11 to Wayland was a funny thing to post publicly about. And a funny thing for
In the Mac space, a lot of malware just gives up if it detects Little Snitch is running. It's a really effective tool, and honestly, the cost is so minimal compared to the value. I've been running it for years, and I appreciate how much junk traffic I can block.
Microsoft specifically denies windows certification to any device that doesn't allow secure boot to be disabled and custom keys loaded, and they have since the release of Windows 8.1 (13 years ago). There's no Windows RT devices on sale, and even Microsoft's own first party Surface Pro Snapdragon devices give you, the user, complete control over secure boot process and custom key loading.
But if the best you can come up with is criticising a Windows version that flopped so badly it nearly took an entire idea of using arm as a desktop computer architecture with it, that was used by so few people that Microsoft abandoned ideas to develop an ARM based system for a full decade, then I'm sorry but you are advertising a huge win for Microsoft there.
Now, have you got anything to say that actually impacted users, preferably something from this decade?
Bullshit.
Your lack of understanding doesn't make something bullshit.
You had root on my box, you have already had the opportunity to crypto ransom me, just vandalize my system in general, find and extract any sensitive data in my home directories and on any mounted volumes.
You forgot one. I had root on your box. That made me an evil-maid, and you just said secure boot protects against that. There's a difference between malware at a point in time, and achieving residence. Maybe I don't want your shitty dick picks in your mounted volumes, maybe I'm after your bank account details. Oh I know how about a key logger. But what if you attempt to remove said key logger? Well we have the perfect solution, since you don't know about persistent malware and choose to leave secure boot disabled I now have fucked your system beyond your repair. We thankyou for your ignorance and lack of security.
In fact I would suggest for most users of home PCs anyway (to include laptops that rarely if ever travel) are less secure for using secure boot and even FDE. Most of them are one bad update or certificate expiration away from rendering their data completely inaccessible and unrecoverable.
Maybe you should look up the word "secure" in the dictionary. You just described data in its *most* secure state. Nothing is more secure than something inaccessible and unrecoverable. Even if your case were true (secure boot has zero to do with your data) the result would still be more secure not less secure.
At this point it's clear you don't even understand the basic terms being used in the discussion.
You're speaking in circles. You remove all the things you claim you don't want and then you complain that there's nothing left and that you may as well run Linux? Please don't ever advertise for Linux anymore you make it sound horrible.
It's not a conspiracy theory that Microsoft steals your data, they admit it.
No it's a conspiracy theory. They admit to specific things, calling it "your data" is FUD. What is actually taken is known and agreed to in ToS, so not only is it not "your data" it's not "stealing".
They enable One Drive by default.
They don't do anything by default. They force you into a choice screen which is not able to be bypassed by an X. And even if you blindly click okay because you don't want to read it backs up only specific folders on your computer, and does so with big bright green visible tickmarks leaving no doubt.
They enable Ink & Type, along with other analytic services, all to steal your data.
Yeah nah, no data is being stolen there. They aren't taking all your data, just a database of mistakes that are miscorrected. You can thank me for participating for your spellchecker working better than ever before.
So, that being the case, you need to run something like VeraCrypt to key your files safe from Microsoft.
I may have told you before you have no idea how security works, but in case you tried to educate yourself in the mean time you clearly failed. VeraCrypt addresses precisely zero, nada, NIL, none of the issues you list or complained about. It has no ability to hide any data from Microsoft what so ever other than the data that you never access.
Please get some help.
The em-dash is once again crying in the corner for not being invited to the party.
Just because it's FOSS doesn't mean the key isn't generated at run-time, stored locally, and would have to be sent as part of the first packet or burst of data... if the key that decrypts it on your end isn't sent, how does the exit node have usable data to send to the Internet-at-large?
Congrats, you don't understand the basics of secure key exchange, but that's easy to fix: I suggest starting with the colour model for a basic understanding: https://www.arsouyes.org/artic... afterwards you can look into the details of how this works mathematically. No your key is *NEVER* sent anywhere. EVER. It's not required for key exchange.
And, especially because it's FOSS, the governments have already reverse-engineered it, figured out the decryption so they can peek at what you send, re-encrypt it, and send it on it's way.
There's nothing to reverse engineer. Encryption and security is based on well known public algorithms. These are designed to enable secret communication, that you can verify on a mathematical level. There's no reverse engineering anything, there's only breaking the key, and the key generation process relies on a the concept of mathematics that easily calculate but difficult to reverse. E.g. Discrete logarithm problems. Take M^b mod p = x. I could tell you M and p and x and you would still have no hope in hell of figuring out b.
You don't like what I post, then don't read it.
Why post if you don't want to engage in a discussion?
Maybe you'd rather terrorists and cartel members converse over these encrypted channels, and nobody knows a thing...
If this is the kind of thing you normally post I don't have any idea why no one has called you deranged before.
Hardly. If the user has access to files then Microsoft does as well. That's the fundamental problem with this debate by multiple people here. If you can open a file then Microsoft has access to it. If you use VeraCrypt to secure your windows partition then Microsoft has access to all the files since you literally need to decrypt the partition to load the OS.
Tinfoil hats are not a nice fashion accessory.
You can disable secure boot. But Microsoft clearly has too much power and too little oversight and consequences for when they screw up.
You have clearly not enough knowledge and too much ignorance on the topic. No you don't need to disable secure boot. Microsoft has no control over secure boot. You can even load your own custom keys for the Windows boot process, to say nothing of Linux's secure boot process having zero to do with Microsoft control either.
But you don't care, you've been told this before. At this point you're willfully ignorant.
Its uses are a) DRM
There is no way of querying secure boot or using it for DRM. All you can do I report if secure boot was on or off.
b) corporate lockdown of hardware in the hands of employees where they don't want to give root
That could be as well, but we already had non-secure boot options for that.
c) DRM
See a) Saying something wrong twice doesn't make it right, it makes you twice as wrong.
d) letting manufacturers or OS vendors control the machine you paid money for
Manufacturers have no control over secure boot. The implementation requires the keys be able to be managed by the user. You just jump into UEFI and delete Microsoft's key if you want and load your own. It's no more giving someone else control than a website that suggests a strong password.
e) yeah that's it
No that's not, you missed what Secure boot does.
You actually said a few right things there. Yeah it has nothing to do with hardware attacks, it has to do with persistent attacks.
But "persistent" means "past wiping the drive and doing a full reinstall"
No. The assumption for any computer is that it boots into a known configuration. Persistent in this case means it is impossible to remove from the OS. At no point has the definition included your "nuke from orbit" approach.
If a virus compromises a user's account, that's the actual harm done already, not reinfecting the machine.
Viruses can be removed and cleaned from machines. At least the ones which aren't following the correct definition of persistent. Damage in the modern definition is continuous and ongoing. Just because you've been infected at one point in time doesn't mean it's game over.
Ahahahahahaha, oh sweet summer child....
No "secure" boot does not protect you.
Yes I'm sure if you have no idea what you're talking about you'd think that. I agree with you by the way. Passwords do nothing so I just leave the field blank.
but in linux it doesn't do anything useful...
Except for sign the boot process to ensure no resident malware can persist through reboots. There's example of it by the way, this isn't theoretical, Bootkitty is bootlevel malware that is exactly the kind of thing Secure boot protects against.
An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.
