If I understand this article right <https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/cyber-security/microsoft-signing-key-required-for-secure-boot-uefi-bootloader-expires-in-september-which-could-be-problematic-for-linux-users>, there is a signing key stored in the flash RAM of PCs, issued by Microsoft, which is used to sign a “shim” that allows third-party Linux distros to boot. However, that key is due to expire this September. Microsoft issued an updated key two years ago, but that key may not be widely installed as yet. This leaves it up to PC/OEM vendors to issue updates to the flash RAM on their motherboards, which is not something that can be taken for granted. I’m not the only one wondering whether Secure Boot is worth the hassle: It's easy to see the appeal of Secure Boot—making it more difficult to install bootkits should be a net positive. However, the looming hassle of dealing with this expiring key is just the latest in a series of frustrations that encourage people to either stick with Windows or disable Secure Boot entirely. Right now, many people opt for the former, but will that continue to be the case as the popularity of other platforms rises ahead of Windows 10's demise? And is Secure Boot, as it currently exists, prepared for that shift?