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