[U-Boot] U-book and GPLv3? (fwd)

Jean-Christian de Rivaz
2009-06-25T21:44:54Z

ksi at koi8.net a ?crit :
>>>> 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.
>>> Are you looking for a precise phrase?
>> I want to look deeper into the subject. I think that if a regulation
>> make a technical point as a requirement, then it must more or less
>> describe the technical point so that it can be implemented is a way it
>> work as expected. As an engineer, I think that a "secure boot" is only a
>> buzz word: if the system can be physically modified, it can't be
>> secured. If it can't be physically modified, then you don't need a
>> secure boot.
>
> It is not just technical measures; it is a complex of them and different
> operating procedures.

Yes, I known that. But here we specifically talk about u-boot. You still
failed to show a description of how u-boot can be modified to secure a
system and why this must be a hidden proprietary code.

>>>>>> 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.
[...]
> Ah, that's absolutely orthogonal issue... We do NOT do something stupid from
> engineering standpoint because it makes sense (and quite often it doesn't)
> but because the regulations and the Commission's understanding of them
> requires that.
>
> Yes, many of those are stupid and outdated but they do a good job anyways;
> there is not that much cheating in our casinos.

You seem to agree that a "secure boot" is maybe not more that only a
marketing word...

[...]
>> Why do you think I want to fight regulation ? I actually be more
>> concerned about understanding how a proprietary hidden piece of code
>> into u-boot can possibly make a system satisfy a security regulation.
>
> It is not just hardware/software. The latter is only a part of solution. It
> is NOT the machine that pays that jackpot, it is real humans. There is no
> way to make the system unbreakable and impossible to cheat on. That's why an
> additional layer of security is being able to DETECT that system had been
> cheated on.

So why using open source at all if you think that hidden code is a way
to make a system more secure ? It highly not consistent !

Regards,

Jean-Christian de Rivaz