this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2026
660 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

85719 readers
4282 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 hours ago

Kinda, they excluded CPU's that are no longer supported by Intel. If a vulnerability happens, Intel isn't going to willingly provide microcode fixes. I'd say it's old enough it's safe, but history has proven that to be a dicey proposition. TPM was arguably bad architecture with vulnerabilities; it's just protecting the boot chain, but BitLocker is already fucked 7 ways to Sunday.

Trying to up their security for corporations is understandable, that's not to say this isn't a hard push to get people to upgrade because providing support for 10 probably costs them a lot of money.

Requiring TPM at the install check but not actually requiring it to run is bullshit.

LUKS on Linux is far better at protecting your equipment.