3 ms·
I personally don't dislike the concepts of trusted computing. As much as I love to tinker with things, the last thing I want is some data appliance being remote
by Teknoman117 5y ago
I personally don't dislike the concepts of trusted computing. As much as I love to tinker with things, the last thing I want is some data appliance being remotely exploitable.
I think all the devices that provide more security by being heavily locked down should basically have a tinker switch. If you really want to write your own firmware for your phone or your dishwasher, flip it to tinker mode which locks you (maybe permanently) out of the software it shipped it and let you flash whatever on to it. The manufacturer gets to waive all responsibility for your safety (digital, physical, etc.) from that point onward.
Bonus points if it just blows away the keys to the onboard software so you can use the security mechanisms for your own code.
- dTal 5y agoThat's still very consumer-hostile. How am I supposed to write a replacement firmware for my dishwasher if I have to brick it first? I have dishes to wash! I'm not gonna buy a second dishwasher for development purposes. Why can't I test it against the native firmware? (And by the way - remotely exploitable dishwashers? What the heck is the world coming to?)
- Teknoman117 5y agoI was just thinking of the extremely litigation happy culture in the US. We literally have thousands of highway signs in cities saying that if you were in an accident, call us and we'll sue the person who rear ended you. All I imagine is someone running their own firmware on an appliance, doing some unseen damage, and then reverting to the onboard firmware and getting hurt. It would be a field day for lawyers. I completely agree that this sucks and it's the same reason robotics has proceeded at a snail's pace. God forbid making a Roomba with a more powerful vacuum, what if it ran over someone's toe.