4 ms·
What you've said is why a lot of people voiced concerns to that suggested changes, leading to it getting safely cancelled, while the same cohort of people were
by numpad0 2y ago
What you've said is why a lot of people voiced concerns to that suggested changes, leading to it getting safely cancelled, while the same cohort of people were and are fine with existing anti-tamper requirements.
I guess it's another anecdotal datapoint that shows disastrous state of the field called software engineering, especially relative to other professional fields of engineering(cf. https://xkcd.com/2030/ https://xkcd.com/2030/).
- AnthonyMouse 2y agoThe requirement also feigns innocence. As far as I can tell there is no actual requirement to block third party firmware, merely a vague rule that says they have to do something. But designing hardware specifically to enforce the regulatory limits even if the firmware requests otherwise would cost money whereas blocking third party firmware just screws over the public, so in practice that's what they pick when you force them to check the box. On top of that, using that method is also the least effective because then any firmware vulnerability still allows regulatory limits to be exceeded. And if you're okay with that then there are plenty of alternative measures that could be used to check the box at low cost as long as you don't care that they're not very effective. But somehow that's a failing for the alternatives whereas with software it's just expected to be rubbish.