k...@koi8.net a écrit : > On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> On Wednesday 24 June 2009 20:59:11 Richard Stallman wrote: >>> The principal purpose of these products is to restrict the public's >>> freedom. So it is natural that their means involve restricting our >>> freedom too. >> it sure is nice to make generalities as it makes your resulting argument >> so >> much easier to digest. the companies ive worked with could give two >> sh*ts >> about end customers tinkering with their products. they're interested >> in >> keeping their product secure from other people in their respective >> industry >> and from malicious tampering for regulation/safety purposes. > > I would like to add that sometimes regulations EXPLICITELY require secure > boot. No product can be approved without it. And this does not have anything > to do with public's freedom. Just one example is gambling industry which I > happen to work right now. Nobody cares about cloning or public's freedom > here. What they care about is that nobody can cheat on those nice shiny > machines that sometimes let a lucky person to win a multimillion jackpot.
Please point out precisely the regulations that require secure boot. Should be trivial as regulations are by definition public. I failed to understand how a secure booted machine can be updated by the manufacturer to fix a bug for example, but not by a customer. Regards, Jean-Christian de Rivaz _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
