I’ve had situations like this with my notebook where it would appear to do nothing from the GUI when clicked. It was because I didn’t have power connected, and I think gnome software has since been updated to reflect this.

Assuming you were connected to power, I’m not sure but it may be worth reporting as a bug to gnome-software?

FWIW, your UEFI is generally likely to reset with significant hardware changes (system memory, CPU). It’s generally fine with video card, disk and power supply swaps so long as it doesn’t boot into a stop code as a result.

Which index were these disks arranged in? Windows will install its bootloader on 0 regardless of where you physically install the OS.

I like to keep OS disks self contained, and tend to completely remove other connected disks when conducting a new install. This is a must for Windows, I’ve not had a Linux distro place it’s bootloader in anything other than the OS destination.

Pluton capable hardware is present on a wide range of contemporary IHV offerings (requires TPM2 hw on the SoC) but OEMs selling devices with these don’t seem remotely interested in enabling it.

Vendor uptake has been minimal, and participating vendors seem to have changed their minds and stopped, though I don’t think this will affect hw implementation as that wasn’t really governed by Microsoft to begin with.

Vendors are no longer actively implementing the pluton spec. It’s not in itself equivalent to Intel ME, whereas something like platform security processor (aka PSP - based on ARM TrustZone) could be considered a closer equivalent.

Pluton is a weird thing. It’s not dedicated HW designed or produced by Microsoft, it’s more of a specification which requires something like TPM2 hardware on a given SOC.

Most vendors do not implement the pluton spec in their offerings.

Yep, uses CEF, though many popular desktop apps do without much perf impact.

Third time’s the charm or?

I’ve reached out to the ICO, hadn’t thought about it but I suppose I could try MS legal as well. Good idea

I did that in my communications to their support staff.

I’ve also attempted to contact their legal dept directly with no luck.

I was a little confused by the tone of this one. I scrolled back up and realised it was written by Signal’s Meredith Whittaker, and it made a bit more sense.

I see, good to know. There’s always potential for that. I suppose we’ll see in the coming weeks.

I suppose there’s a chance but it’s not even my main payment method. I primarily use an entirely different card from a different vendor for the majority of my purchases today.

I’m also wondering what a fraudulent customer would need to do to warrant a test charge. I can’t think of anything an end user would do to invoke an attempt of $0.00 on their first transaction with my details.

Appreciate the information. An associate of mine did allude to this being the case, key thing is they’ve attempted a transaction on this payment method and I’ve told them to stop.

I thought about that, but it’s an entirely new card. Even if they had the AN, SC, Card number, they’d still need the new expiry date and security number. I don’t think these are required for business, however.

Yup, reported this to the ICO two days ago.

I suppose I did want to find out if it happened to other people ahead of reaching out, but it can take up to 15 weeks for a case to get looked at, so I figured I’d send it asap.

I neglected to mention in the post that I’ve already reached out to the ICO. Appreciate you linking this here for others in the UK who have dealt with the same thing though

That’s why we have the ICO here in the UK (and similar government bodies across Europe)

As mentioned near the top, I preusme this was an automated test charge to check the validity of the payment method