The Internet of criminal things

Posted Sep 24, 2015 20:53 UTC (Thu) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
In reply to: The Internet of criminal things by marcH
Parent article: The Internet of criminal things

I'd go even further and say that Secure/Trusted boots don't need to be incompatible with owner modification. It's certainly easier to not bother with a mechanism for the eventual owner to modify the system, which is why owner modification should be legislatively required, so device makers can't skip out on this requirement. All you really need is local physical presence and maybe tamper evidence (so it's easy to see if the owner or the manufacturer is responsible if the software messes up), which are actually easier problems to solve than authorizing remote updates over the network.

The Internet of criminal things

Posted Sep 24, 2015 21:12 UTC (Thu) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

> All you really need is local physical presence and maybe tamper evidence (so it's easy to see if the owner or the manufacturer is responsible if the software messes up), which are actually easier problems to solve than authorizing remote updates over the network.

Well said. Call this a "fuse", make a nice sentence around it with "voided warranty" in it, and that's it: you've made the whole issue simple enough for anyone to fully understand. Even lawmakers.