Re: [PATCH v5 00/21] EVM

Pavel Machek
2011-05-26T20:02:20Z

On Thu 2011-05-26 12:30:07, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> On 5/26/2011 11:38 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Thu 2011-05-26 14:11:54, David Safford wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 09:34 -0700, Casey Schaufler wrote:
> >>> On 5/25/2011 11:08 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>> Fourthly, is it likely to find its way to the next cellphone I buy,
> >>>> and will it prevent me from rooting it?
> >>> That will of course depend on the phone vendor. You are certainly
> >>> going to be able to vote with your checkbook (digital wallet?) but
> >>> odds are pretty good that should EVM prove effective it will be
> >>> ubiquitous within the next five years on embedded devices.
> > Hmm. But maybe it is more effective to vote with NAKs, now? It does
> > not seem to have any non-evil uses.
> >
> > Phone vendors will play nasty tricks on us, but... why make it easy
> > for them?
>
> For one thing, it is probable that in the not-too-distant future
> the phone will not be yours. Many service providers are moving in
> the direction of zero-cost phones. The subscriber will pay the

Really? References?

No, I don't think this is going to happen, for variety of reasons. 1)
prepaid cards, 2) phones are easily damaged, 3) phones are often stolen.

> Most people will not notice the difference. Consider this a
> nasty trick if you want to. I expect that the average consumer

I _do_ consider it nasty trick...

> Welcome to computers in the 21st century.

...and I do not want to help people playing nasty tricks. Protection
against offline attacks should not be merged.

Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html