>Authentication of boot loaders is done via cryptographic signatures [...] the cryptographic certificates that may be used to validate these signatures are then signed by Microsoft
This is what concerns me. While Microsoft are indeed dominant, surely them signing these is a conflict of interest? Why can't there be an external body that signs these, including those for Microsoft?
This is what concerns me. While Microsoft are indeed dominant, surely them signing these is a conflict of interest? Why can't there be an external body that signs these, including those for Microsoft?