- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
TP-link is reportedly being investigated over national security concerns linked to vulnerabilities in its very popular routers.
TP-link is reportedly being investigated over national security concerns linked to vulnerabilities in its very popular routers.
Can’t say I’ve ever seen an example of signed firmware that didn’t exist to further exploit the working class.
You’ve never used Linux?
Signed firmware just means you can prove a given key was used to sign something. Most Linux distributions sign their packages so you know one of the trusted keys from the maintainers was used to sign the packages (and yes, this includes firmware), which prevents a man-in-the-middle from modifying packages.
The only problem I have with signed firmware is if there’s no way to change the acceptable keys. Signing itself is an important security feature, its only problematic if the user can’t upload their own signed packages.
Requiring signed firmware is just a lock to keep poors out.
It’s Never used for consumers benefit, not once, not ever.
Signed firmware doesn’t cost anything, so I’m not sure what you mean by “keep the poors out.” Signed firmware has a very valid use case for preventing supply chain attacks. The only time I have an issue with it if there’s no way to make your own signed package or bypass the requirement.
It costs the ability to flash your own firmware.
That’s 100% of all signed firmware implementations.
These checks are usually at the application level, so flashing via telnet/SSH still works. It’s generally not like TPM where the boot will be blocked if the signature doesn’t match, and in many cases, systems with those protections have a way to set your own keys (e.g. like with GrapheneOS on Pixel phones).
I don’t think you know what firmware is.
Maybe you don’t. Here’s a list of firmware packages in Debian. Signing for router packages follows the same logic as those Debian packages.
I rest my case.