diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/2012-December/009031.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/2012-December/009031.html | 191 |
1 files changed, 191 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/2012-December/009031.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/2012-December/009031.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b0f4e4da0 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-discuss/2012-December/009031.html @@ -0,0 +1,191 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> +<HTML> + <HEAD> + <TITLE> [Mageia-discuss] FSF anf UEFI SecureBoot + </TITLE> + <LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" > + <LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-discuss%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-discuss%5D%20FSF%20anf%20UEFI%20SecureBoot&In-Reply-To=%3C21208379.5sqrtD9rAK%40localhost%3E"> + <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow"> + <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> + <LINK REL="Previous" HREF="009030.html"> + <LINK REL="Next" HREF="009032.html"> + </HEAD> + <BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"> + <H1>[Mageia-discuss] FSF anf UEFI SecureBoot</H1> + <B>AL13N</B> + <A HREF="mailto:mageia-discuss%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-discuss%5D%20FSF%20anf%20UEFI%20SecureBoot&In-Reply-To=%3C21208379.5sqrtD9rAK%40localhost%3E" + TITLE="[Mageia-discuss] FSF anf UEFI SecureBoot">alien at rmail.be + </A><BR> + <I>Mon Dec 31 17:14:36 CET 2012</I> + <P><UL> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="009030.html">[Mageia-discuss] FSF anf UEFI SecureBoot +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="009032.html">[Mageia-discuss] FSF anf UEFI SecureBoot +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#9031">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#9031">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#9031">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#9031">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + <HR> +<!--beginarticle--> +<PRE>Op maandag 31 december 2012 15:53:51 schreef Ludovic V Meyer: +><i> 2012/12/30 AL13N <<A HREF="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-discuss">alien at rmail.be</A>> +</I>><i> +</I>><i> > Op zondag 30 december 2012 21:17:38 schreef Ludovic V Meyer: +</I>><i> > > Except it does let 3rd parties OS boot, at least on X86, since the norm +</I>><i> > > mandate it. +</I>><i> > > And for arm tablet, no one reacted when Apple, Acer, Samsung, Archos and +</I>><i> > > lots of others locked down their devices, so trying to argue that we now +</I>><i> > > expect them to be open would not work. +</I>><i> > +</I>><i> > actually, they didn't. you can root each of those iinm. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> Using 3rd exploit is not really what I call open, they are not supported, +</I>><i> likely against DMCA most of the time, and IMHO not reliable. +</I>><i> Not to mention that it requires a manual intervention on each device. If we +</I>><i> take the example of Apple, they closed every hole after a while when it was +</I>><i> practical to do,and used the existing leagal way to prevent them ( see in +</I>><i> 2009, +</I>><i> the update of the developper agreement ). And since I know you will surely +</I>><i> talk of if, the DCMA ruling for jailbreaking is just for phone, because +</I>><i> unlike France, telcos in USA do not have to unlock your phone after a few +</I>><i> months. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> Not to mention that afaik, despites them being "not closed" by your +</I>><i> definition, stuff like Iphonelinux are all dead in the water. +</I>><i> Cyanogenmod only exist because from time to time, Google do a code drop, +</I>><i> and they still suffer from needing a custom fork of the kernel. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> So if the goal is "to be able to run what I want on my device", that's +</I>><i> something that can already be done for applications. What people should say +</I>><i> is "running what I want provided no money directly leave my pocket, but I +</I>><i> do not mind spending days figuring how to do it, cause I prefer spend 1 +</I>><i> week than giving 100 bucks". +</I> +whatever you purchase, it's yours and you can do with it whatever you like for +whatever purpose, as long as you're not using it to harm people, other +property or violate laws (but even then, only these laws are violated, not the +fact that you use something for another purpose. + +in fact, this means they are restricting you for using your property in +whatever way you see fit. + +><i> this is about having a secure key hardcoded "burned" in the device, which is +</I>><i> > both stupid and annoying. because since apps need to be secured too, too +</I>><i> > many +</I>><i> > people have access to the root key. which means the chance of leak is +</I>><i> > higher. +</I>><i> > which means that your devices need to be thrown out when the rootkey is +</I>><i> > compromised or when it's deemed obsolete and a new key will be in place. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> The key is handled by Verisign, and since that's their jobs since around 18 +</I>><i> years, I think they are qualified to do it. +</I>><i> How many time in 18 years was the root cert of Verisign be compromised ? +</I> +Are we talking about the same key here? i do find it odd that verisign would be +handling the microsoft key. Who actually has the decision power here? + +><i> Also, you are totally wrong about throwing the device if the key is leaked. +</I>><i> This happened to the PS3 due to the world-record breaking ignorance of Sony +</I>><i> ( or one sub contractor ), and AFAIK, the PS3 all around the world still +</I>><i> work ( and also, no one formally complained about gaming consoles being +</I>><i> closed, despite some of them just being powerful PCs ). The same goes for +</I>><i> various phones/tablet who have been broken this way ( like the Asus +</I>><i> transformer, AFAIK ). +</I>><i> +</I>><i> Burning a key in silicium is what Apple have been doing since a long time. +</I>><i> That's also the modus operandi of TPM modules. They are used by several +</I>><i> banking institutions as a way to make sure the harddrive is protected with +</I>><i> bitlocker ( cause you do not want your highest executive laptops to be +</I>><i> stolen and that this cause privacy and security issues ). IE, that is +</I>><i> viewed as sufficient for FIPS certification and usage for military grade or +</I>><i> banking grade security. And I am pretty sure the private key is stored in +</I>><i> some HSM like the nShield solo or similar device. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> Not everybody work like your client ( the one we talked about yesterday on +</I>><i> IRC, if I am not wrong ). Some people take security seriously, and check +</I>><i> what happens. But that's not security of the root key that matter, since no +</I>><i> one ever asked for public scrutiny or a independent audit. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> the thing here is that since you buy a device, it's yours and you can do +</I>><i> +</I>><i> > what +</I>><i> > you want with it. why would you give other parties control over your +</I>><i> > device? +</I>><i> > it's stupid. there needs to be a way as an owner to decide which root keys +</I>><i> > you +</I>><i> > trust or not. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> You do not give control to another party, you delegate trust handling to +</I>><i> another party. +</I>><i> That's exactly what you do with a browser. Or your bank, or anything in +</I>><i> life. +</I> +but you can still choose who you trust. + +><i> Again, the norm mandate to be able to disable secureboot on x86 and to +</I>><i> choose the key. The whole petition is about those that do not follow the +</I>><i> norm, and for those, the incentive was to not being Windows 8 certified. So +</I>><i> as annoying this will be, that's the best way to find something that let +</I>><i> you run Linux. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> > > And regarding using consumer protection channels, no one did anything to +</I>><i> > > make anything move since one year despite being widely publicized on +</I>><i> > > various blogs, so how is your proposal different ? +</I>><i> > > +</I>><i> > > Talk is cheap, if every people who proposed that ( for example, on +</I>><i> > +</I>><i> > slashdot +</I>><i> > +</I>><i> > > or various foras where nerds are discussing ), someone would have +</I>><i> > > started +</I>><i> > > the work by the time. No one did, and that's because everybody that +</I>><i> > > would +</I>><i> > > be serious enough know this is built on wrong assumptions. +</I>><i> > +</I>><i> > in the end talk is cheap and noone does anything about it. or rather +</I>><i> > instead +</I>><i> > of working together, all the companies who back the major linuxes decide +</I>><i> > to go +</I>><i> > down the easy route. (like subscribing into the microsoft program and +</I>><i> > using +</I>><i> > their root key...) +</I>><i> +</I>><i> All plans that requires someone else to do anything is just a way to blame +</I>><i> failure to someone else. If you delegate all your action to someone else, +</I>><i> you lose the right to complain about this group not doing what you want. +</I>><i> Only delusional fools would believe otherwise. +</I>><i> +</I>><i> In fact, hardware not working on Linux is a decades old problem. We all +</I>><i> have seen how boycott worked so well to have more hardware supported on +</I>><i> linux, and how people happily trade freedom for convenience ( like nvidia +</I>><i> drivers, printers, etc, etc ). People should just do a reality check from +</I>><i> time to time before proposing the same plan again and again. Last time I +</I>><i> checked, humans didn't evolve from goldfish, so maybe we could stop acting +</I>><i> like them. +</I></PRE> + + +<!--endarticle--> + <HR> + <P><UL> + <!--threads--> + <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="009030.html">[Mageia-discuss] FSF anf UEFI SecureBoot +</A></li> + <LI>Next message: <A HREF="009032.html">[Mageia-discuss] FSF anf UEFI SecureBoot +</A></li> + <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> + <a href="date.html#9031">[ date ]</a> + <a href="thread.html#9031">[ thread ]</a> + <a href="subject.html#9031">[ subject ]</a> + <a href="author.html#9031">[ author ]</a> + </LI> + </UL> + +<hr> +<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-discuss">More information about the Mageia-discuss +mailing list</a><br> +</body></html> |