●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive
Forgot your password?
Close
Post
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
| Reply
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byfph il quozientatore ( 971015 ) writes:
Can someone ELI5 what they are trying to build? Is it something similar to Android's verified boot + attestation or Play Integrity?
byWyzard ( 110714 ) writes:
Likely something similar, yes. People have valid concerns about remote attestation being used for DRM, but that's mostly from the standpoint of an individual who uses services provided by big companies. For businesses deploying Linux across an enterprise, however, there's a lot of value in being able to cryptographically verify that your own machines are running exactly the software they're supposed to be.
Poettering wrote a lengthy blog post [0pointer.net] a few years ago which describes his overall vision for a signed, image-based OS that encrypts its disk using the TPM (like BitLocker) and unlocks automatically only if the OS hasn't been tampered with. Various distributions have started to implement some of the ideas presented there, like UKIs [archlinux.org] as a better way of doing Secure Boot, but nobody is implementing all (or even most) of it, because it's a different set of design goals than what general-purpose distros are meant for. So, I think the goal of this new company is probably to implement something similar to what Poettering described in that article, to fill a market niche that isn't well-served by other distributions.
Reply to This Parent
twitter
facebook
Flag as Inappropriate
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
-- Roy Santoro
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...