| |||||||||||||
dm-veritydm-verityPosted Sep 22, 2011 11:39 UTC (Thu) by k3ninho (subscriber, #50375)Parent article: dm-verity
There are benefits for LiveCD's to ensure that the disk has been written correctly. The possibility also arises of adding error detection/correction to restore the data to known-good states.
The thing I find surprising here is that this is being discussed in the same week as mjg59's blog post about the Windows 8 Logo program requiring Secure UEFI booting. There's no less scandal to Google and Netflix preventing users who intend to buy a general-purpose laptop from running other OS software (or who, years later, decide to upgrade their Chromebook to a newer edition of Linux) than Microsoft potentially limiting users' freedoms in the same way. The shoe may be on the other foot but the fight for full use of the capabilities of the hardware we buy - for general-purpose computing - carries on.
K3n.
(Log in to post comments)
dm-verity Posted Sep 22, 2011 19:10 UTC (Thu) by semenzato (guest, #80402) [Link]
There is a fundamental tension between security and the ability to install your own software. Making a device more secure against remote attacks also makes it harder for the owners themselves to make changes. But the key, of course, is "remote". As the article points out, Google-blessed Chrome OS devices are required to have a physical switch that makes the system bypass firmware, kernel, and read-only file system verification. So the owners get to choose.
Chromium OS is open source, so it is possible that hardware vendors will produce devices without that switch. It will be up to customers to make the right choice.
dm-verity Posted Sep 25, 2011 7:31 UTC (Sun) by vapier (subscriber, #15768) [Link]
Chromium OS doesn't contain the proprietary fun bits (like Netflix) that turns "Chromium" into "Chrome", so it automatically makes that route less desirable to vendors.
also, the internet says Google filed for a trademark on "Chromium". Mozilla/Firefox have used their trademarks in the past to control how people distribute things called "Firefox" to the point where they have a pretty strong say in things downstream from them.
dm-verity Posted Oct 3, 2011 19:01 UTC (Mon) by JanC_ (guest, #34940) [Link]
I know of at least two open source projects that have used the name "Chromium" long before Google did, so I doubt that trademark would be worth much?
dm-verity Posted Sep 25, 2011 7:36 UTC (Sun) by vapier (subscriber, #15768) [Link]
actually, there is quite a bit less scandal to Chrome OS devices -- one might say there is none at all. if you read the documentation from the Chromium website, you'd see that the developer switch is a non-negotiable requirement. thus users' freedoms are not impaired in the slightest. don't like Chrome OS ? flip the device and install whatever you want.
http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chromiumos-design-doc...
INFORMATION IS POW-WA
|
|||||||||||||