| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Linux: GPLv3, DRM, and Exceptions (KernelTrap.org)Linux: GPLv3, DRM, and Exceptions (KernelTrap.org)Posted Oct 23, 2006 7:54 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302)In reply to: Linux: GPLv3, DRM, and Exceptions (KernelTrap.org) by man_ls Parent article: Linux: GPLv3, DRM, and Exceptions (KernelTrap.org)
> that the security and reliability of the network cannot rely on the endpoints behaving
Yeah, that's what I meant with security through obscurity (i.e. the network is safe as long as the client acts in a "secret" way). Very true, of course.
Given the real world experience with purchases of mobile phones and then trying to switch them over to different providers, I think the providers are still doing this to some extent. Some providers wouldn't let certain phones onto their network.
(Log in to post comments)
Linux: GPLv3, DRM, and Exceptions (KernelTrap.org) Posted Oct 25, 2006 12:42 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] There's no "obscurity" involved. The protocols that cellular phones operate over are published and generally have been implemented by many people. The client does not "operate in a secret way".
However, the client (phone) in a cellular network has much greater scope to disrupt the network than a wired phone. That's just the nature of radio. That's why the FCC requires certification of devices that operate in cellular networks.
Obviously, there are many other ways to disrupt the network, too. Those means are generally illegal. Is it surprising that manufacturers don't wish to risk their certification and liability suits by letting third parties modify their devices?
Linux: GPLv3, DRM, and Exceptions (KernelTrap.org) Posted Oct 26, 2006 0:19 UTC (Thu) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] Thanks for the clarification on wireless network disruptions. I really don't know anything about that, so I was just guessing (obviously incorrectly) the "obscurity" was the reason for wanting locked devices on the network.
> Is it surprising that manufacturers don't wish to risk their certification and liability suits by letting third parties modify their devices?
Exactly. They find a device that is both flexible (i.e. programmable via the network) and at the same time locked quite useful. Releasing keys for the software on such a device would make it unlocked again, defeating the purpose of locking it in the first place.
Linux: GPLv3, DRM, and Exceptions (KernelTrap.org) Posted Oct 26, 2006 0:42 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Is it surprising that manufacturers don't wish to risk their certification and liability suits by letting third parties modify their devices?On the contrary, it is quite the expected. That is why people are not speaking against the manufacturers. What many of us don't get is that hackers are so willing (even eager it would seem) to be their master's puppets. Many network behaviors are illegal, but I don't see hackers advocating for closed (or worse, locked) networking stacks. Well, live and see.
|
|
||||||||||||