On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 02:23:20PM +0200, Damien Fleuriot wrote: > > I agree with the whole post except that last bit about ICANN Matthew. > > The US already has enough dominance as is, without involving ICANN, a > supposedly neutral body (yeah right...) any further.
Indeed. The last thing we need is some self-appointed "authority" purporting to have the last word on what qualifies as "secure". There is no need for a third-party certification of secure booting. If there is need for such a secure booting mechanism at all, it is a need for the ability of end-of-chain device owners to be able to set their own keys, without the involvement of any third parties, and an out-of-band key verification mechanism. Once again, I feel it incumbent upon me to point to examples like OpenPGP's keyserver network as the counter-proposal to a cetifying "authority" charging money to allow people to control their own system security in what amounts to a vacant lot scam. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"