From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 6 19:43:19 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 697891065675 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 19:43:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from feenberg@nber.org) Received: from mail2.nber.org (mail2.nber.org [66.251.72.79]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7955C8FC14 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 19:43:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nber7.nber.org (nber7.nber.org [66.251.72.41]) by mail2.nber.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q56Jh3j1073330 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 6 Jun 2012 15:43:04 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from feenberg@nber.org) Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 15:43:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Feenberg To: Damien Fleuriot In-Reply-To: <4FCFA41A.4010506@my.gd> Message-ID: References: <201206061630.q56GUJj7093472@fire.js.berklix.net> <4FCFA41A.4010506@my.gd> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Anti-Virus: Kaspersky Anti-Virus for Linux Mail Server 5.6.39/RELEASE, bases: 20120606 #8143329, check: 20120606 clean Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 19:43:19 -0000 On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Damien Fleuriot wrote: > > > On 6/6/12 6:45 PM, Daniel Feenberg wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Julian H. Stacey wrote: >> >>>> I do wonder about that. What incentive does the possesor of a signing >>>> key >>>> have to keep it secret? >>> >>> Contract penalty clause maybe ? Lawyers ? >> >> A limited-liability company with no assets is judgement-proof. >> >>> >>> Otherwise one of us would purchase a key for $99, & then publish >>> the key so we could all forever more compile & boot our own kernels. >>> But that would presumably break the trap Microsoft & Verisign seek >>> to impose. >>> >> >> Could it really be that simple? As for hardware vendors putting revoked >> keys in the ROM - are they really THAT cooperative? Seems like they >> would drag their feet on ROM updates if they had to add a lot of stuff >> that won't help them, so that doesn't seem like a great enforcement tool. >> >> dan feenberg > > > Oh god... > > Please realize that once the key is divulged, it gets revoked at the > BIOS' next update. But my point is that MS doesn't issue the updates, they have to ask the BIOS vendors to do so, and then the MB vendors have to take the update, and then the users have to install the update. The incentive at each level is generally very small. It does create some confusion, but is hardly an enforcement mechanism. It would disable older versions of FreeBSD on newer hardware, but not much else. A previous poster has pointed out that MS can't revoke a certificate belonging to RH, but I suppose the could ask the BIOS vendors to treat it as revoked. I don't know what the response would be. Daniel Feenberg > > Otherwise the key's purpose is rendered moot. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >