zlacker

It's funny how Microsoft seems unable to do "security" without veering into megalomanic authoritarian schemes. See also Palladium.

What about trying to secure your software without building the infrastructure for an oppressive dystopian future? Too much to ask?

>>hansjo+(OP)
They're used to have the desktop monopoly, and losing them makes them to literally lose sleep over the matter.

It's not a matter of security, it's a matter of monopoly. Since forever.

>>hansjo+(OP)
Yes. Look at the zeroday clusterfuck that is Teams.

To Microsoft, security is an excuse for a land grab.

>>hansjo+(OP)
It's not that they can't do security without going full authoritarian, I think they do it because they want to go authoritarian. The new security benefits are just a vehicle.

They're a lot like the common politician who smuggles horrible laws into relief bills or trade treaties. UEFI (especially on the ARM platform) and intel ME are to examples of this.