3 ms·
I also wonder at the utility of this for end user machines. On end user machines, the valuable and secret data is owned by the user, is volatile (not protectab
by sixbrx 14y ago
I also wonder at the utility of this for end user machines. On end user machines, the valuable and secret data is owned by the user, is volatile (not protectable at the OS level with current OS's which have no idea when/how user owned data should be changing), and furthermore is accessed and modified using processes owned by the user. Confused deputy process which are owned by the user seem much more likely to me to do real damage on a home machine.
Which is not to say that this technology is useless, boot-level attacks are important to defend against even if they aren't common now. But one has to wonder whether the costs are worth the benefit, on end user machines?
- zokier 14y agoBotnets often cause little to no perceptible harm to the users of the zombies machines. I've heard of cases where the viruses actually attempted to improve the computers security to keep other viruses out and gain exclusive access to it. But still most agree that fighting botnets is important. Note that I'm not saying that Secure Boot is significant in the battle against bots, but rather that security is important even if there is not immediate benefits to the users of that particular machine.
- wmf 14y agoI don't think the concern is for the user's data at all. It's to prevent the computer from becoming an uncleanable botnet zombie.