I may not be the only one on what's having issues about Boot Protection being enabled.
Again, it's successful on Windows, but no luck on Linux due to limitation or the lack of technology on fixing these issues.

Secure Boot is not a Linux limitation. I would also like to see an appropriate Secure Boot implementation in SteamOS, especially for dual-boot setups.

Secure Boot is not a Linux limitation. I would also like to see an appropriate Secure Boot implementation in SteamOS, especially for dual-boot setups.

I didn't say Secure Boot is Linux's Limitation, Linux supports Secure Boot just fine as long it's compatible with not just Other OS-based but also for Windows UEFI-based and I managed to enable secure boot, but it's just that Steam is not recognizing it or TPM 2.0/fTPM, that's all. It's not possible that is a limitation for Linux, it's Steam Launcher itself is the issue.

Yet, I'm not the only one that is having this problem, here's the link what I found on why I'm not the only one.

Sure, Windows Users says that use Windows is the solution, but that's not part of the Linux Gaming what we're asking for.

Speaking of SteamOS, I already heard that it now has a built-in support for Secure Boot, but I'm not sure that would fix some issues for games like Call of Duty & Battlefield. Because I heard that Call of Duty and Battlefield needs a Windows-Based Secure-Boot and TPM 2.0 before playing them for a strict security reasons.

I was agreeing with you that it is a Steam OS issue, also mentioning and confirming that Secure Boot is not a general Linux issue. I have Secure Boot working perfectly fine on Bazzite and other Linux distros.

Also, you will not solve kernel level anti-cheat issues with Secure Boot on Steam OS, or any other Linux distro if that's what you're trying to do. Call of Duty and Battlefield kernel level anti-cheats are not designed to work on Linux. That is on the anti-cheat developers to address, and as far as I can tell, not something they're interested in doing.

I was agreeing with you that it is a Steam OS issue, also mentioning and confirming that Secure Boot is not a general Linux issue. I have Secure Boot working perfectly fine on Bazzite and other Linux distros.

Also, you will not solve kernel level anti-cheat issues with Secure Boot on Steam OS, or any other Linux distro if that's what you're trying to do. Call of Duty and Battlefield kernel level anti-cheats are not designed to work on Linux. That is on the anti-cheat developers to address, and as far as I can tell, not something they're interested in doing.

Understood that solving Kernel Mode anti-cheats that only supports Windows is impossible, I know that too, I'm just having concerns about Secure Boot and TPM 2.0 not being verified by Steam, even if I left Secure Boot and fTPM on, that all. 😉

Because if there is something like Linux Support for the Anti-Cheat but requires Boot Protection, that would be another thing for many PvP Games. Speaking of EA, I heard that they're working on Linux Support, not saying for Battlefield.

But hey, if Steam was able to detect that Secure Boot and TPM 2.0 are enabled, even on Linux, that would be great, but that issue is not fixed yet.

The issue with Battlefield 6 not working is a result of its kernel level anti cheat. Valve can't do anything to fix this as Battlefield 6 detects proton and exits by design. The only thing you can do is try to tell EA to support Linux like they did with 2047.

The issue with Battlefield 6 not working is a result of its kernel level anti cheat. Valve can't do anything to fix this as Battlefield 6 detects proton and exits by design. The only thing you can do is try to tell EA to support Linux like they did with 2047.

You're talking about Anti-Cheat itself, not boot protection.
It has nothing to do with Boot Protection itself, so they didn't just avoid Linux Support, they also include boot protection to be required before play it, that means that even if I'm on Windows (Though I'm not), but without secure boot & tpm 2.0 enabled, the game is still unplayable until boot protection is enabled (Again, Secure Boot & TPM 2.0). So this has nothing to do with Kernel-Level itself, Boot Protection (Secure Boot & TPM 2.0) is a Firmware-level, not Kernel-Level. So please understand the difference.

Kernel-Levels are issued by the Operating System's Kernel as Firmware-Levels are issued with our computers that has UEFI Firmware (Speaking of Secure Boot and fTPM) and TPM should have three versions, dTPM (Dedicated TPM), fTPM (Firmware-level TPM) & PTT (Intel's Firmware-level TPM).

I do know how and why Secure Boot exists and how it works, but that’s not the point. Even if Proton passed the Secure Boot and TPM state to the game, it wouldn’t change anything. Proton is open source and runs user space, anyone could spoof the check by modifying the code to always report it as active. The entire reason these games require Secure Boot and TPM on Windows is to make sure the Windows kernel itself hasn't been tampered with. Not to mention that most secure boot solutions on Linux are self-signed, which also defeats the point as you are not trustworthy in the eyes of the developer.

I hope you do know and understand because Firmware-levels and Kernel-levels aren't a same, not even close.
And just one thing: Proton runs on User-Space, because you (Including I) are running it on Linux, it's only optimized to Windows because it was build this way as Microsoft made it were it's not compatible with Wine/Proton.

Besides, after setting Secure Boot from Other OS to Windows UEFI, Linux detects Secure Boot is enabled, just only if MOK setup is completed.

So, I still say Firmware-level requirements need to be fixed of all times.
It's possible that Firmware-levels can be supported, it's just there are no technologies for it to fix that yet, WineHQ Devs need time (Sure it's not easy).

Most Importantly: Please do not accuse me of not trustworthy in the eyes of the developer. (Because any more accusements will be avoided)

I’m not accusing you specifically, I’m just stating that the devs don’t trust the user, that’s why they put anti-cheat in the game. What I’m trying to say isn’t that secure boot isn’t good or useful, I’m trying to say that enabling it in proton does nothing. All you have to do is make it return true on the win32 api call, and that’s what makes it pointless. Secure boot is about trusting the environment your program runs in to not have been tampered with, which proton inherently does as a translation layer. So why would valve or winehq put in any effort to pass that to the application.

I’m not accusing you specifically, I’m just stating that the devs don’t trust the user, that’s why they put anti-cheat in the game. What I’m trying to say isn’t that secure boot isn’t good or useful, I’m trying to say that enabling it in proton does nothing. All you have to do is make it return true on the win32 api call, and that’s what makes it pointless. Secure boot is about trusting the environment your program runs in to not have been tampered with, which proton inherently does as a translation layer. So why would valve or winehq put in any effort to pass that to the application.

You mean this: I’m not accusing you specifically, I mean't the devs don't trust us.
That's what you meant, but thanks for a feedback.

Just one thing, in order to understand: When Devs do not trust us, then there's no reason for us to send them a bug report for the first place. I just want to help, that's all and I thought we're trusted for all of these years and bug fixes mostly worked in time, not saying this recent bug report.

However, they could just make it were that Steam knows that I did enabled Boot Protection (Secure Boot with MOK/Windows UEFI & fTPM) but heads up that Linux is not supported by the game, just like this quote:

Unsupported Secure Boot & TPM 2.0 Detected
Steam has detected that you enabled Secure Boot & TPM 2.0, but the game's boot protection requirement is unsupported on your current Operating System.