26 ms·
Although you are correct, I don't feel it's bad to blame the vendor who was running code that they didn't know the source of, nor the reasoning behind it's exis
by CaptSpify 10y ago
Although you are correct, I don't feel it's bad to blame the vendor who was running code that they didn't know the source of, nor the reasoning behind it's existence.
- kuschku 10y agoSo, literally every vendor? Can you think of a single example of a vendor not running UEFI code from others, not running either Qualcomm's kernels for ARM chips, nor distributing Intel's ME firmaware, nor distributing AMD's TPM firmware? I don't think there's a single OEM that knows what they're actually running – if there is, SAMSUNG would likely be it, because they have a chance at actually doing everything in-house.
- drewg123 10y agoI thought that Chromebooks, at least, run coreboot rather than UEFI, and so should be immune from this.
- skykooler 10y agoProbably Apple, too - they prefer to implement things in-house wherever possible.
- narrator 10y agoI wonder what command and control systems that ship with Russian and Chinese military equipment use.
- CaptSpify 10y agoCorrect. Just because everyone does it, doesn't mean it's OK to do. "If everyone jumped off of a bridge..."
- Asooka 10y agoIf everyone jumped off a bridge, the bridge is probably on fire, or the several decades of airtime has a higher ROI than the bridge and if by some miracle you actually start getting close to the water, you always have your golden parachute.
- nitemice 10y agohttps://xkcd.com/1170/ https://xkcd.com/1170/
- devy 10y agoIt's only been a few days since disclosure. No PC manufacturers these days knows every single line of code they get from their vendors - if they did, there wouldn't need to outsource it in the first place.
- CaptSpify 10y agoYou are correct, but that still doesn't make it right.