Linux and Secure Boot certificate expiration

51 pabs3 16 7/18/2025, 3:53:31 AM lwn.net ↗

Comments (16)

mkj · 42m ago
It's not just Linux - certificates to sign Windows are also affected in 2026.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/windows-secure-boo...

https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/windows-itpro-blog/...

Really it seems like having any expiry date for these certificates is a mistake. The one thing it might protect against is a compromised signing key, but if you have to wait 15 years for a compromised key to stop being valid, it's not very useful!

Don't worry, the replacement MS certs expire in 2038 (a couple of months after the 32-bit unix time rollover).

greatgib · 1h ago
It's totally crazy that we have to go through Microsoft to sign things to be able to have our OS run on third parties computers, and that Microsoft manage to win about this so easily as it was never seriously challenged.
sugarpimpdorsey · 15m ago
It makes more sense if you view it for what it is: Honest Satya's Certificate Authority.

Microsoft showed they can semi-competently run a PKI. The end.

Now had the Linux folks stepped up to the plate early on, instead of childishly acting like Secure Boot was the computing antichrist, the story might be different. But they didn't. We only have shim because some people at Red Hat had the common sense to play ball.

flomo · 5m ago
Maybe this isn't a great take, but RedHat/LKF/etc could obviously run a 'semi-competent' PKI, and probably should be. But doing so would allow PC vendors to cleanly segment machines between Windows and Linux (+$$), so perhaps it made the best sense to lay-low and use MS infrastructure for this.
nine_k · 49m ago
Basically every x64 computer is intended to be able to run Windows. Hence MS had to be involved, and I suppose nobody else with serious money wanted the burden.

AFAICT you can still disable Secure Boot in most UEFI firmware, and boot anything you like (or not like, if an attacker tampers with your system).

oakwhiz · 24m ago
We don't even reap the benefits of autocratic decisions from Microsoft in this area. Boards always come out with things like messed up ACPI, etc.
whatagreatboy · 50m ago
Only legal requirements can change it. Nowadays, the mokutil is good enough that linux users can build a good tool around it to automate registration at boot that should ease some pain. But otherwise, it is a big mess and still needs legal requirement.
saidinesh5 · 1h ago
Just out of curiosity, how good is the secure boot experience these days?

I've had to disable it on all my installations because of either nvidia drivers or virtual box modules. In general Arch based distros didn't seem too friendly for secure boot set up.

paulv · 43m ago
My experience as a long time Linux user (since 1997, so admittedly stuck with some bad habits from when things were actually hard to get working) has been that things are kind of confusing if you deviate from the golden path, but if you are on the golden path you won't ever notice that it is turned on.

The laptops I have gotten from eg Dell with Linux pre installed have just worked. Machines I have upgraded through many versions of Ubuntu (lts versions of 16-24) were weirdly broken for a while when I first turned secure boot on while I figured it out, but that seemed reasonable for such a pathological case. Machines I have installed Debian on in the last few years have been fine, except for some problems when I was booting from a software raid array, but that is because I was using 2 identical drives and I kept getting them confused in the UEFI boot configuration.

I have not used them on machines with nvidia, vbox, or other out-of kernel-tree modules though.

pbhjpbhj · 17m ago
Every couple of years MS do an update that messes up multi-boot/dual boot. I'm sure it's on purpose at this point, and relatively sure "Secure Boot" is how they achieve it.

Still on Windows only for kids games. Linux user since last millennium.

bravetraveler · 1h ago
Signature maintenance for modules can be fully automated. Enrollment requires navigating a mildly-intimidating interface a single time to accept the new PKI.

Fine for systems you physically manage, anything remote in a datacenter I wouldn't bother (without external motivation)

mormegil · 6m ago
Which is strange because secure boot should be useful in _exactly_ the situation you don't have physical control of the HW, shouldn't it? I guess the threat model for a common not-that-important company does not include evil data center (and it's dubious if SecureBoot would protect you in reality), but wasn't that one of the motivations?
negative_zero · 45m ago
Well I can say that the update is not going 100% smoothly. I have a pending KEK update in Fedora but it's a test key (bug filed but no progress as of yet).
Artoooooor · 28m ago
Just another factor creating electro-junk. Currently I can install 30 year old system on 30 year old hardware (assuming that I keep both the machine and the installation media in a good shape). With current computers it will be impossible because they will be "unsupported".
crinkly · 1h ago
So is it a possibility that a grub update breaks an existing bootable node? That worries me as I have a couple of Linux desktops in the field which I can’t remember if secure boot is enabled on.
roschdal · 50m ago
Secure boot is so evil.