To the skeptics here -- the problem is that malware can turn one kind of USB device into another kind of USB device, and that creates a massive attack surface g

To the skeptics here -- the problem is that malware can turn one kind of USB device into another kind of USB device, and that creates a massive attack surface given the scope of USB. Check out all the things that a USB device can claim to be.[1] You don't just need your OS to be secure against a malicious storage device; you need it to be secure against a malicious keyboard and mouse, speaker/microphone/sound card, printer/scanner, CNC machine, webcam, ethernet or wifi adapter, bluetooth adapter, infrared adapter, RNDIS adapter (whatever the heck that is, but it's supported by BSD as well as Windows), an ActiveSync device, a smart card reader, a fingerprint reader ... As I understand it (and I wouldn't mind being wrong), a hostile USB stick could claim to be a hub running all of these at once, and orchestrate them in an attack. Consumer-oriented OSes will happily load up standard drivers to talk to most of them in an attempt to be user-friendly, each with their own hooks into the OS. And the hostile device can detect what OS and probably specific hardware it's talking to,[2] so it can target an attack at the drivers that are likely to exist. If that's true, I don't see how anyone could be confident that such a stack could ever be secured on the OS side. A secure bulk storage driver is one thing, but your laptop has to be secure against a hostile keyboard working with a hostile CNC machine, sound card, and ethernet device? At a minimum it seems like devices should be locked at the hardware level to the kind of device that they are. Code signing makes a lot of sense too, although it's sad to lose the (hypothetical?) ability to install alternative drivers. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#Device_classes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#Device_classes [2] http://ix.cs.uoregon.edu/~butler/pubs/sadfe11.pdf http://ix.cs.uoregon.edu/~butler/pubs/sadfe11.pdf