From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean-Christian de Rivaz Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:10:11 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] U-book and GPLv3? (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: <20090618145128.69F27832E416@gemini.denx.de> <12fb2e608911e671661778990f2f793e.squirrel@webmail.plus.net> <200906251000.17822.vapier@gentoo.org> <4A43A0C9.8090009@eclis.ch> Message-ID: <4A43CB93.80206@eclis.ch> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de ksi at koi8.net a ?crit : >> Please point out precisely the regulations that require secure boot. >> Should be >> trivial as regulations are by definition public. > > Do you happen to know what "Google" is? Yes, thanks :-) For example this document have the term "secure boot": http://www.dcg.virginia.gov/supplier/sup-rules/standards.shtm The wording is this one: "D. Electronic Bingo [...] 3. [...] Security measures that may be employed to comply with these provisions include, but are not limited to the use of dongles, digital signature comparison hardware and software; secure boot loaders, encryption, and key and callback password systems." The term "secure boot" is listed as a possibility, not as a requirement. Now I don't have the time to parse every possible document that Google propose. This is why I politely ask a precise example, as I was under the impression that some peoples know very well this subject. > This is our Nevada regulations: > > http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs.htm I don't have the time to parse all the documents listed at this URL, but I downloaded the one I suspect is the more relevant: http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs/reg14_tech_stnds.pdf And I cannot found "secure boot" into it. >> 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. > > The manufacturer can _NOT_ update his machine at will. _EACH AND EVERY_ > change goes through the same approval process. Still, technically the hardware have only two possibility: 1) it can be reprogrammed. 2) it can't be reprogrammed. If 1), I dont' see how the a boot loader can't be replaced by a less secure one and let boot anything. if 2), there is not point as nobody can possibly make any update, so the firmware don't have to be secured. Regards, Jean-Christian de Rivaz