[coreboot] Feedback On Coreboot: the Solution to the Secure Boot Fiasco
rhyotte at gmail.com
Sat Jan 5 01:10:11 CET 2013
You are correct, "never" is far too long to quantify. I stand corrected.
Secure by default because --Big Brother says that it is secure" is
tantamount to loss of individuality and personal freedom.--
Perhaps -- Secure by means of openly auditable and verifiable security
trace would be better?--
"Big Brother" is not always an answer.
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Andrew Goodbody <ajg4tadpole at gmail.com>wrote:
> On 03/01/13 23:23, gary sheppard wrote:
>> Numerous security experts have already said it is anything but secure,
>> and it will never be secure. They have only said this quietly, and that
>> "voice" has been minimalized, while "PROGRESS" is shouted to the
>> heavens. Hey, look at android and how phone makers "lock" it down. Does
>> it stay locked? No! Come on people, put your heads out of... ;)
> Security is not an absolute. It is a tradeoff against the time needed to
> overcome it. Secure Boot is more secure than no security. coreboot offers
> no security. coreboot can never be "the Solution to the Secure Boot Fiasco"
> until it can offer better security than Secure Boot.
> Yes there may be breaks for early implementations of Secure Boot but
> anyone predicting that it can never be fixed is a very brave person. Never
> is a long time. Remember, fixed does not mean perfect. Fixed just means
> takes longer to overcome than anyone cares to invest in it.
> Sorry but "this will be broken because everything before it has been
> broken" is not a credible critique; that is the inductive fallacy.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the coreboot