Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Google "Slippy" Chromebook Supported By Coreboot

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by pgeorgi View Post
    It's about Google being able to vouch for the system. It might be a selling point to customers, or it might not.
    Is it absolutely secure? No. If you're aiming for absolute security, build your own fab.
    Hint: x86 based Chromebook come with Intel chips. Intel chips come with the Management Engine: full access to video, input devices, network and RAM, controlled by 1.5MB firmware (what is all that code doing? that's the _light_ version!) that can't be replaced by anyone but Intel (since it's signed by them).
    I'm not all too interested in buying Google devices, but I certainly won't buy Intel.


    In which case you probably shouldn't buy Google...
    Don't be ridiculous. There's no such thing as "absolute security". Every security measure can be broken, if by nothing else then by human error. But that doesn't mean that it's all the same to have no security at all. Just because we can't attain perfection doesn't mean that we should settle for any shit available. Having really good security is still better than having total shit security, even if it isn't perfect.

    And I don't buy Google. Well, Android phone, but that's because there weren't any better alternatives at the time, and I never do anything important with my phone anyway. I don't even log on any websites with my phone. It's ok to use insecure devices, as long as you recognize they're insecure and treat them as such.

    That's beside the point though, because this entire conversation had nothing to do with my buying habits.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by pgeorgi View Post
      There's a picture on http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/...romebook-pixel (https://a77db9aa-a-7b23c8ea-s-sites....ottom-guts.jpg)

      The golden screw on the right. I once asked one of the ChromeOS-coreboot devs - I guess they forgot to add the information.
      The point is not having to go through all this trouble to boot the damn thing. A simple solution would be to give you a firmware choice/switch.Boot in what google wants or boot ie. GRUB2. Point where the kernel is and not have to touch the thing in a lifetime. I would also be OK with proper UEFI.

      Comment


      • #18
        The 2 problems with the Chromebooks are the slow-as-molasses ARM processors that the cheaper models run on, or the limited storage space provided (which happens to be also conveniently soldered directly into the mainboard).

        Dev-mode / 30 second warning screen / etc are just inconveniences that can be endured.

        Anyway, only paranoid people with digital dirt on them will worry about being snopped on.

        Comment


        • #19
          Any affordable full-HD, 14" maximum, linux compatible laptop out there?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
            The 2 problems with the Chromebooks are the slow-as-molasses ARM processors that the cheaper models run on,
            Actually, the cheaper models run Intel processors. Only the Samsung Series3 ($249) and HP Chromebook 11 ($279) use ARM processors, and both are more expensive than the Intel based Chromebooks from Acer (starting at $199).

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
              The point is not having to go through all this trouble to boot the damn thing. A simple solution would be to give you a firmware choice/switch.Boot in what google wants or boot ie. GRUB2. Point where the kernel is and not have to touch the thing in a lifetime.
              Making it hard to modify the Chromebook's operating system without generating a big fat warning at every boot is part of the Chromebook's security concept. The way it is done in the Chromebook Pixel raises the bar for a successful attack against this to actually opening the device.
              Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
              I would also be OK with proper UEFI.
              Ugh. Have you seen a "proper UEFI" implementation anywhere? Coreboot is a good choice, maybe not as good as Open Firmware in the OLPC, but still.

              Comment

              Working...
              X