On Thursday 25 June 2009 19:29:26 Richard Stallman wrote: > - automotive control units: Think about cars being on the highway with > many fancy features built into their electronics (from their owners), > which unfortunately are a security risk for the owner and others on the > road. > > I don't think cars depend on software for safety as such. If a > computer breaks down, the engine mail run badly -- but if you run > out of gas, it might stop entirely. You can still steer the car. > > If someday cars do have computers whose proper functioning is > necessary for safety, we could use airplanes as a policy example. If > you own a small plane, you are free to change it, but you need to get > the change inspectied for airworthiness.
this is pure wishful thinking. people personally modifying software in their car are not going to go get it recertified. > - medical equipment: Think what nice features could be implemented into > these many machines located in the emergency room... Accessible to any > person who comes by. > > Being free to change your copy of a program does not mean you must let > anyone and everyone change your copy. For instance, the code on my > netbook is all free software, but it is not generally accessible to > anyone but me. none of your scenarios are applicable to the issues Thomas raised. public safety is significantly more important than a handful of hackers here. i'm not going to knowingly subject myself to a medical device that emits radiation (e.g. x-ray machine) that allows anyone to modify it. that sucker had better be locked down to prevent any uncertified (e.g. signed) software modifications. companies that have access to the hardware capabilities to prevent this (i.e. secure boot) and dont implement it are blatantly negligent. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
