other_catSystemd’s New Feature Brings Age Verification Option to Linux
The optional birthDate field gives other projects a standardized data source for age verification compliance.
voidsignalWhatever the old farts will come with their stupid laws, SURPRISE MOTHERFUCKERS, it’s Linux. It’s always a sudo away from doing (or not) exactly what you (don’t) want. I know. This is beyond their comprehension. Adding a field here is ok to me. Because if it ends up being used:
- I can not set it
- I can set it wrong
- I can be 1000y old
- I can have a different age for every request
- I can prevent the shit accessing it from accessing it
- I can uninstall the shit that is trying to access it
The only thing that will hurt from this are companies in CA, CO and wherever.
The average Linux user will not give a single fuck. I know I don’t.
whimsyAll of that is true, at least for now. But if you look at the work the systemd developers have been doing with remote attestation and end to end verification of computers, it starts to paint a grim picture. Web based integrity might not be that far off. But I really hope it doesn’t get that bad
ell1eRelevant article: gnu.org/…/you-the-problem-tpm2-solves.en.html
And if anybody thought TPM provides security: elevenforum.com/…/tpm-2-0-is-a-must-they-said-it-… gist.github.com/…/45e612345376a65c56d067883453516… sophos.com/…/serious-security-tpm-2-0-vulns-is-yo… www.covertswarm.com/…/how-secure-are-tpm-chips
Reader, you know what’s likely most secure? FOSS code, peer-reviewed and regularly patched.
I don’t get why one would trust security theater, aka TPM and secureboot.
muusemuuseits the opposite in the best possible way. FOSS = “we know it’s too complicated to make perfect. that’s why it’s all out in the open where we call eachother out on our shit. We dont sell, we improve.” proprietary = “there is no war in ba sing seigh and to say or demonstrate otherwise is terrorism against shareholders.”