3 ms·
Hypotheticals aside, there are very real and practical reasons for wanting to protect firmware and prevent tampering; and none of them are nefarious in nature.
by qayxc 5y ago
Hypotheticals aside, there are very real and practical reasons for wanting to protect firmware and prevent tampering; and none of them are nefarious in nature.
One such reason is simply compliance: if a device is only capable of safe operation when running within a certain spec and dangerous otherwise, regulatory frameworks might require manufacturers to ensure said specs are honoured.
While a manufacturer can and must provide the "robust and well tested software ecosystem" you yourself desire, Mrs random tinkerer might not. A device running with modified firmware might therefore lose its operating license and - best case scenario - get damaged in the process, or on account of it being dangerous if operated outside of spec endanger the life, health and/or property of its owner/user/operator.
There's no need to dream up hypothetical scenarios on distant planets when all it takes is a typo to turn an MRI machine into a waffle iron for people or an Insuline dispenser into a super effective suicide device.
Not every device is intended- or safe to be tampered with by unqualified laypeople.
It's also pretty arrogant to assume just because you know how to program to also have sufficient knowledge to be able to understand and make meaningful changes to every conceivable device in existence that uses some kind of firmware.
There's a reason certain jobs require qualification and there's also good reasons certain devices are not to be messed with by unauthorised/unqualified people either.
- modshatereality 5y agoIt's true you shouldn't tinker with many types of hardware without extensive knowledge and experience. You're going to want to staff your off-world outpost with competent engineers and scientists that can develop and test new task-specific software or patch existing software, not some random entry-level programmer or tinkerer. IMO it would be extremely arrogant for a manufacturer to claim their remote updates "must" be tested adequately in every conceivable environment, up to and past the operating requirement extremes because some imaginary regulation dictates it. From {m,b,tr}illions of miles away because AFAIK the best they can do is simulate what might happen, not actually test operation in a real environment as their life actually depends on it. If I cannot audit the encrypted bytestream it sure as hell is not going to be piped into any of my spacecraft, life support, communication systems, or anything TBH. With me, trust starts with being able to read the source code, and modify it when it needs to be fixed. Giving a specific crypto function too much trust could leave you vulnerable or even lock you out of fixing critical flaws that "the manufacturer" sees as perfectly fine and within spec. Maybe I've just had too many horrific experiences with software updates and that is causing some bias. Or seen too many science fiction films.
- userbinator 5y agoWhat a pile of authoritarian paranoia-scaremongering BS. That's the same argument used by John Deere and such to destroy right-to-repair, yet the automotive aftermarket survived for literally a century without that shit. "Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."