Bitfrost and dual-boot
Jameson "Chema" Quinn
jquinn at cs.oberlin.edu
Thu May 29 14:29:56 EDT 2008
I just had an IRC conversation with Benjamin Schwarz in which we talked
He said that 3,4, and 5 have been considered more serious than 1 and 2;
since they are impossible, there is little point doing 1 and 2. I disagreed.
There is no way with current hardware to write-protect the NAND storage, and
not too much space (<<512K) in the firmware storage. However, it would be
possible to hash NAND or some subset thereof, and complain loudly on boot if
it changed. Blanking RAM on reboot, and keeping the private key in firmware
instead of NAND are also possible.
There is little point spending much energy on this issue until more of
Bitfrost is in place.
Once this becomes salient, it might be worth doing something along these
lines. Also, it might be another good argument against dual-boot, especially
with highly insecure OS's like Windows.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Albert Cahalan <acahalan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Jameson "Chema" Quinn writes:
> > Actually, the goals are more limited. Say you have dual-boot;
> > OS 1 has bitfrost, OS 2 does not. Things OS 2 should not do:
> > 1. Read private files from OS 1.
> > 2. By writing to OS 1's file system,
> I do believe that, practically speaking, all of this is moot.
> Windows uses both SD card storage and the NAND flash storage.
> (NAND storage being what you'd hoped to protect)
I did not hope to protect all of it. I hoped to use encryption and/or
signatures to limit the kinds of damage that could be done.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Devel