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

[ksi at koi8.net <ksi@koi8.net>]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Jean-Christian de Rivaz wrote:

> 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 Yes, many of those are stupid and outdated but they do a good job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...

No, this does not have the same strict meaning as "#6-32x1/2" slotted head
steel zinc plated machine screw." It is a set of different features. Here
is e.g. a Freescale's whitepaper on one of their SoCs:

http://www.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/white_paper/IMX31SECURITYWP.pdf

> [...]
> > > 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 !

Who is talking about hidden code? It can be open source. And quite often it
is. And most of that code, BTW, is written by the people who are paid to do
it. If you want to make us drop U-Boot and write our own firmware no
problems, that's just additional job security for us. But don't expect all
those people to do anything on U-Boot and forget about their contributions.

---
******************************************************************
*  KSI at home    KOI8 Net  < >  The impossible we do immediately.  *
*  Las Vegas   NV, USA   < >  Miracles require 24-hour notice.   *
******************************************************************