Hi Matthew, thanks for the explanation.
>> Don't you mistake "security" for "authenticity"? > > In this context, I believe both terms are interchangeable and effectively > mean the same thing. This is generally not true. These concepts have well defined meanings. I can have a secure communicatins channel with someone I did not authenticate. Also I can have a non-secure communications channel with someone who authenticated himself by some means to me. > It is secure because only authenticated code is allowed to be > executed, thus another step to avoid piracy, hacking of conditional > access systems etc. Running only authenticated code does *not* ensure security, no matter how much this is wished for. But no matter, I now understand that "security" seems to mean "data can only be handled in the way intended by the owners of the data" which is a different concept to me. Cheers Detlev -- FORTRAN's tragic fate has been its wide acceptance, mentally chaining thousands and thousands of programmers to our past mistakes. I pray daily that more of my fellow-programmers may find the means of freeing themselves from the curse of compatibility. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-40 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: d...@denx.de _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
