I also really like the idea and I admire the effort put in developing it but no matter how physically secure it is, it is useless if the chip inside is already compromised. One problem I also noticed when first reading the campaign details is that if you can't access the inside of the computer but have physically access to the room that it is into, one could just hide a camera behind it and record the monitor or the keyboard, or everything at once, which makes all this physical security useless. Anyway it is great to see effort to improve physical security and if it's open or libre enough, it could be used as a basis for other projects
2016-08-25 8:03 GMT+02:00 Xavi Drudis Ferran <[email protected]>: > El Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 03:43:17AM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton > deia: > > https://www.crowdsupply.com/design-shift/orwl > > > > looks totally cool > > > > Do you mean the aesthetics ? > > It's an Intel CPU. You get ME, SMM, signed boot under Intel control, etc. > They even have a section "Why Intel? Isn’t x86 Considered Harmful?" > which basically says: "yes, it's harmful, but everybody uses it and there's > nothing else we can do". > And the "open source" section basically says "as open source as we can". > The microcontroller specialised in security does not have public > datasheets. > > > > _______________________________________________ > arm-netbook mailing list [email protected] > http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook > Send large attachments to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list [email protected] http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to [email protected]
