| 1 |
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 26 Sep 2011 20:29:14 Jonas de Buhr wrote: |
| 3 |
>> >> between a fully-signed system (Windows 9 / OS XI or so) or a cracked |
| 4 |
>> >> boot, with little in the way of switching between the two, at least |
| 5 |
>> >> initially |
| 6 |
>> >> |
| 7 |
>> >> I know which one I'd pick if it came down to it :) |
| 8 |
>> > |
| 9 |
>> >And you really need not worry about it, some geek (Torvalds?) will |
| 10 |
>> >surely find out a way. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> yes, there will most likely be a technical way to circumvent it. the |
| 13 |
>> problem is that involved companies might try (and likely succeed) to |
| 14 |
>> make that illegal. |
| 15 |
>> the reasoning will be this: it is assumed that you only make that |
| 16 |
>> modification to run pirated copies of commercial operating systems. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> that you will also need that mod to run free operating systems on it |
| 19 |
>> will just not count. at least not for commercially offering the mod. |
| 20 |
>> just look at decss. or playstation mod chips. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I am assuming that unlike the old days when I used to boot Linux on PCs using |
| 23 |
> a floppy with SmartBootManager, now we'll need to generate some key/hash for |
| 24 |
> our freshly compiled kernel, then add it to the BIOS firmware and flash the |
| 25 |
> BIOS with it before we are able to boot into it? |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Is it more complicated than that? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Just a hunch, but I think the BIOS will probably be signed. Perhaps in |
| 30 |
replacement of the existing checksum functionality. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I *really* wonder what this is going to do to diagnosis tools. OEMs of |
| 33 |
Compaq/HP/Packard Bell's stature* strike me as likely to use it as a |
| 34 |
lock-in for having machines diagnosed and fixed by certified |
| 35 |
technicians. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
* Meaning, dirt-cheap pre-built PCs and laptops. |
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
:wq |
Archives