4 ms·
> What happens when companies get sick of having to flip the switch? They would leave it in the insecure position all the time. Okay, but how is that worse tha
by SomeStupidPoint 11y ago
> What happens when companies get sick of having to flip the switch? They would leave it in the insecure position all the time.
Okay, but how is that worse than now?
That situation sounds strictly better: things like user work stations, which tend to be the entry points to corporate network for malware stay in a higher security mode and have their HDD firmware updated less often; things like servers in racks are in the same situations, and ops continues on just live they have been.
- mrb 11y agoYes it would be better than now. But the OP was suggesting signed firmware + no switch, which would be an even better solution.
- marssaxman 11y agoonly if the idea of locked hardware you can't control doesn't bother you. I'd rather use open hardware and rely on a simple physical interlock for security. Different customers have different needs, so it would be appropriate that different products might have different security features.
- murbard2 11y agoWhat I suggested isn't locked since there is a manual override. The button is meant to allow unsigned patches, while signed patches are accepted by default. Give it three states if you want: deny all, signed only, accept all. Ship it set on "signed only" which is the default 99% of buyers want.
- marssaxman 11y agoNice. I like it.