Ubuntu Isn't Yet Onboard With GNOME's "Device Security" Screen

[eyupuro]

This also will be disabled on Debian. source

[horizonbrave]

Good 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

Bad idiot things you say,
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 team

[leo_sk]

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

Good. 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.

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

[hughsie]

This also will be disabled on Debian.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[ssokolow]

Good. 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.

Or at least present it in a way that, for a novice, comes across as part of the hardware report, so they see it as being as comparable to whether their model of CPU has VT-x support.

(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.)

[hotaru]

VT-x is the best-known example of a hardware feature that Intel has been segmenting their market on when they shouldn't.

I'm pretty sure AVX and ECC are both a lot more well-known than VT-x.

[ssokolow]

I'm pretty sure AVX and ECC are both a lot more well-known than VT-x.

Point. I'm still on an AMD CPU from 2012 so I still habitually see AVX as "that thing that's too new to be significant". As for ECC, that doesn't affect software compatibility or the ability to hit client-defined performance or security targets (exploits like Rowhammer aside), even if it is important, so I don't really see it as a market segmentation issue from a programmer's point of view.

[arQon]

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.

[Avamander]

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.

I kindly request that you take a look at the various technology underneath before you share how it seems to you.

[arQon]

I kindly request that you take a look at the various technology underneath before you share how it seems to you.

I have no idea what makes you think you have any say in how, when, where, or whether or not I voice my opinion, but let's be clear that you do not.

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.