Hacker News Reader

That's a shame. Honestly though, full-disk is just so darn easy, and nearly as secure. I'll probably just stick with that for a good long while.

EDIT: Looks like LUKS is supported now, which is nice:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd-homed#LUKS_home...

View on HN

Full disk encryption is more secure. If you can't trust your system files who knows whats happening when you enter your password.

Isn’t Secure Boot supposed to solve that issue?

How can Secure Boot help against, say, patched libc?

You need either full disk encryption, or something like dm-verity for that.

I misunderstood your post. Of course full disk encryption is vital for security. My point was that without secure boot you can't be sure that software asking for your password is legitimate. Typical setup consists of unencrypted boot partition with Linux kernel which asks for password. You can't be sure that this Linux kernel was not patched, but Secure Boot helps to ensure that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com