FOFoxboron·Apr 23, 2022
I wrote sbctl to try and make sure self-enrolling keys is completely painless
https://github.com/Foxboron/sbctl
In Fedora considers deprecating legacy BIOSFoxboron
sbctl
Go2020–2026
Foxboron / sbctl
sbctl
:computer: :lock: :key: Secure Boot key manager
11Distinct people
24Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
2.3KGitHub stars
What to know before exploring
What it is
:computer: :lock: :key: Secure Boot key manager
GitHub
Where it is used
No documented product use was verified in the last source check.
What people are saying
No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.
No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.
Also in these discussions
No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.
This week on Hacker News
Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 3:38:16 PM UTC.
No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.
Mentions over time
HN mentions by year24 dated mentions
Observed mentions: 2020-05-15 08:27:37 UTC to 2026-05-12 23:07:08 UTC.
* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.
Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.
View mention counts and date ranges
| Period | Start (UTC) | End (exclusive, UTC) | Mentions | Submissions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 4 | 2 | 2 |
| 2021 | 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 2022 | 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| 2023 | 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 5 | 1 | 4 |
| 2024 | 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 4 | 1 | 3 |
| 2025 | 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| 2026 (partial) | 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 3 | 0 | 3 |
What Hacker News says
2 sourcesThe whole step moving forward into the UEFI direction on Client Computing Systems (laptops, desktop) is the right way.
Even if I dislike the UEFI specification and existing implementations, the spec is more than 24 years old. It might fulfill its purpose as a bootloader/OS interface.
The UEFI BDS interface, the one the most people see and the operating system interfaces, is now standardized for many operating systems and OEMs, making it easier to integrate and maintain. It is finally possible to use standard security mechanisms (verified, measured boot) to secure your device. So we can use such technologies to ensure device security reasonably as we do in my corp www.immu.ne
The custom certificate provisioning is a mess and hard to use, but that can be possibly made easy by projects like: https://github.com/Foxboron/sbctl
I don't believe
Read the rest
the UEFI interface is beneficial for data-center or embedded devices. The UEFI BDS interface was developed for client platforms and required physical presence. It leads to complexity in the DC and embedded world. I feel a more suitable approach would be www.linuxboot.org which is already used by many Hyperscalers and Embedded companies.
That's my 50 cents about the story. My background, I am coreboot developer and security architect.