Fair point Donald. It didn’t cross my mind simply because I have never had Secure Boot enabled. But you are correct and, thanks to your comments, others will now be aware.

That’s a good point about corporate vs home environments. However, what it does and how useful it is isn’t really the point. The point is that the great majority of users are running with Secure Boot enabled and therefore will have issues using Ventoy. This should have been pointed out in the original article. It should not have been ignored.

Well that’s exactly what it’s meant to do: prevent the user from booting software of their choice unless approved by whoever holds the private “Secure” keys.

You can’t have both. It’s either “Secure Boot” or freedom to run Ventoy, UBCD, Free DOS, small Linux distros, etc.

Secure Boot might help with security in a corporate environment where multiple networked computers are operated by multiple users but in a home PC situation, I seriously doubt it.

We’ll have to agree to disagree Donald.

While it can be an annoyance, I disagree somewhat. It very possibly could provide security. I will agree that I have never seen such an instance. But, it could happen. I leave it turned on. My point was that most people do and will have issues with getting Ventoy to work because of it.

My thoughts precisely Panos.

“Secure Boot” is like “Democratic people’s republic”. It’s not secure for the user, it’s secure for whoever wants to turn PCs into walled gardens.

I’ve just read Jim’s posting. He’s right.

Hey Donald,

Secure Boot is permanently disabled on all my machines. I’ve been running Windows machines for 20+ years without Secure Boot, both before and after it was introduced, with never of problem.

Both Secure Boot and TPM are, in my opinion, control mechanisms being passed off as security measures.