> So you are suggesting me to audit an implementation which I do not necessarily run and there's no way to know if I do. What's the point? How will it help?
No, I'm pointing out your, what seems to fundamentally be contrarian, alternative method that you are preferring because it is 'open', is no more secure than the coreboot secureboot implementation. Your concern seems to be based on the idea that the coreboot secureboot implemetnation could have sus code in their, but that is equally true for your heads setup. Unless you audit both, or pay to have both audited, either could have problem code.
Your position is an irrational inconsistency.
> The code running on my hardware is open, so anybody from the community can audit it and I have a possibility to verify that this is what I run at least by reflashing it. And I did reflash it. This approach is getting more reliable with more software becoming reproducible.
This is equally true for coreboot.
