Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 14:42:27 -0600 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is this something we (as consumers of FreeBSD) need to be aware of? Message-ID: <20120606204227.GA1495@hemlock.hydra> In-Reply-To: <4FCF4BB8.8040703@my.gd> References: <CADy1Ce7MihpmMowc265%2BS_RKorMO3KEKsCgr=pdnjg2jzq-dYQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120605203717.5663bdf7.freebsd@edvax.de> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1206051653120.5642@nber6> <20120605181055.4af65fdb@scorpio> <4FCF0772.8000609@FreeBSD.org> <4FCF4BB8.8040703@my.gd>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 02:23:20PM +0200, Damien Fleuriot wrote: > > I agree with the whole post except that last bit about ICANN Matthew. > > The US already has enough dominance as is, without involving ICANN, a > supposedly neutral body (yeah right...) any further. Indeed. The last thing we need is some self-appointed "authority" purporting to have the last word on what qualifies as "secure". There is no need for a third-party certification of secure booting. If there is need for such a secure booting mechanism at all, it is a need for the ability of end-of-chain device owners to be able to set their own keys, without the involvement of any third parties, and an out-of-band key verification mechanism. Once again, I feel it incumbent upon me to point to examples like OpenPGP's keyserver network as the counter-proposal to a cetifying "authority" charging money to allow people to control their own system security in what amounts to a vacant lot scam. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120606204227.GA1495>