Its not a backdoor, because secure boot was never about safety to begin with. Its just a piece of security theater, whose primary use is more control for microsoft. “Secure” boot only boots software signed with a microsoft key, thats the “security”. Microsoft also allows linux distributions to be signed, but nothing is technically stopping them from just refusing, for " security reasons", and on some systems secure boot cant be turned off. So it being bustable is a good thing. There are other ways to protect devices from physical access, but generally, if attackers have physical access to your computer, then its compromised, secure boot or not. Framework just didnt want to play along.
A legitimate backdoor is still a backdoor. If you have security measures and a way to bypass them, you don’t have security measures.
Its not a backdoor, because secure boot was never about safety to begin with. Its just a piece of security theater, whose primary use is more control for microsoft. “Secure” boot only boots software signed with a microsoft key, thats the “security”. Microsoft also allows linux distributions to be signed, but nothing is technically stopping them from just refusing, for " security reasons", and on some systems secure boot cant be turned off. So it being bustable is a good thing. There are other ways to protect devices from physical access, but generally, if attackers have physical access to your computer, then its compromised, secure boot or not. Framework just didnt want to play along.
Can’t you add your own signing key or the distro can. I know you can remove the existing keys.
But a “backdoor” which is swung wide open if you don’t secure it isn’t really a backdoor. It’s more akin to an open window.