And to clarify a bit more, I don't have anything against local security
checks that are controlled by the owner. I merely think they're useless
(unless you're running LinuxBIOS, which would break the chain of trust
anyway), but if they make you feel safe, no big deal.
OTOH, when it is someone else who gets to stablish the policy, this sounds
more and more like a 1984-esque scenario.
It would have been nice to split the two features so that local checks don't
get the bad credit for remote takeovers (only the bad credit for being useless
;-)), but the TCG proponents chose not to do so.
<GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call!
<DRM> What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
(as seen on /.)
Grub-devel mailing list