Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 10 Jul 2001 00:44:15 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: ACPI fundamental locking problems |
| |
Hi!
> > The difference with ACPI is that vendors can write code that is executed > > in the kernel's context (instead of what you can consider the BIOS's > > context). That is a whole new can of worms. > > For security reasons alone we need to ensure ACPI can be firmly in the off > position. Executing US written binary code in the Linux kernel will not be > acceptable to european corporations, non US military bodies and most > Governments. They'd hate the US to get prior warning of say protestors > walking into their top secret menwith hill base playing the mission impossible > theme tune then chaining themselves to things.. > > And if the NSA wants the US goverment to execute binary only chinese bios code > on all their critical systems I am sure people will be happy.
You already rely on BIOS to boot your kernel. What if that evil binary-only BIOS just readed keystrokes stored in 8042, and is sending contents of your harddrive over network during memory test?
Pavel [I believe real problem here is correctness, not security, because BIOS vendor certainly has ways to screw you up.] -- I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |