This also will be disabled on Debian. source
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ubuntu Isn't Yet Onboard With GNOME's "Device Security" Screen
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by leo_sk View PostGood thing to do. It should not be exposed in GUI unless it allows making all relevant changes via the same GUI. A user advanced enough to set them currently does not have any need for the GUI
that is a good effort that helps educating users and eventually also motivates them in taking the matter in their own ends in improving the security of their systems or switching from fucking Ubuntu.
And apparently there's effort from the same company (hat of to you Red Hat) in trying to expose more BIOS settings in FWUPD.
Good thing we have Fedora,
any user (advanced or not) may need all the help needed in keep their systems not comprised.
Thank you Gnome teamLast edited by horizonbrave; 31 August 2022, 05:29 AM.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by horizonbrave View Post
And apparently there's effort from the same company (hat of to you Red Hat) in trying to expose more BIOS settings in FWUPD.
Thank you Gnome team
Also, you are overestimating the necessity of many of the measures. Sure its excellent if all are enabled without caveats, but I would personally not bother with many of them which adversely impact performance or are just painful to set right now. I bet that I still won't have a compromised system. I also bet that you will have a compromised system despite all these measures if you have something on your pc that is worth targetting
Comment
-
Originally posted by leo_sk View PostGood. Then integrate it when they are properly exposed in gui. Otherwise you are just sending novice users on a witch hunt to potentially break their BIOS or installation.
(Yes, I know that "no VT-x" may mean "Go into your BIOS and change its idiot defaults", but VT-x is the best-known example of a hardware feature that Intel has been segmenting their market on when they shouldn't.)
Comment
-
Originally posted by hotaru View Post
I'm pretty sure AVX and ECC are both a lot more well-known than VT-x.
Comment
-
This seems more about the performative aspect, i.e. security theater. "Look how secure your system is now! Don't use a DE that doesn't have a dialog box like this one, because that means it's less secure!". IBM's been adding quite a few pieces like this lately - probably to help Sales sway a few clueless execs or something along those lines.
Comment
-
Originally posted by arQon View PostThis seems more about the performative aspect, i.e. security theater. "Look how secure your system is now! Don't use a DE that doesn't have a dialog box like this one, because that means it's less secure!". IBM's been adding quite a few pieces like this lately - probably to help Sales sway a few clueless execs or something along those lines.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by Avamander View PostI kindly request that you take a look at the various technology underneath before you share how it seems to you.
It's a dialog that provides no way for anyone to use it to resolve any of the "problems" it reports, being presented to users who if they needed it in the first place wouldn't be able to make an informed decision anyway. That's practically the *definition* of "performative".
People are mocking this for being useless crapware because *that's what it is*. Maybe someday it won't be, and if that day comes I'll be happy to applaud it, but today is not that day. Fake drama over fake security doesn't interest me.Last edited by arQon; 03 September 2022, 06:12 AM.
Comment
Comment