[email protected] writes: > But well, live systems or encrypted filesystem are just workarounds on the > "someone have physical access" issue, and both aren't a real solution, in > the ages where cops can use devices that enable them to move a computer > without shutting it down. And seems ram memory doesn't forget > informations like we thought. ;)
Yeah, and all of the features that cope with the physical access problems (ramdisk-only mode, physical access randomization *in* RAM, etc.) add significantly to the system requirements, putting us well beyond what the smallest of low-spec systems and plug 'puters at which Freedombox is targeted. > > Anyway I don't believe that both use cases you describe are that > exclusive, might be just an option to check to have this feature, and even > then, the "silverlining" use case might still use it by default and find > advantages to do so. Another -stealth option that might not be that hard > to push in 1.0. > > bert. No, I don't think they're exclusive vis-a-vis the distribution, either; they're just rather different goals in terms of the installation and administration of the system. The livecd/liveusb menu could offer ramdisk mode or not, as well as Debian Live-based persistency for those who don't want to install. The only problem with Debian Live is that it makes upgrades (in particular, security-critical kernel upgrades) a real pain. The only way to replace the kernel on a Debian Live system is really to get a new ISO--otherwise, hosting the Copy-On-Write filesystem in RAM, and even allowing apt-get install to work there, is all supported by Debian Live. GRML ( http://grml.org/ ) might be a good live system to look into if you want to see all this stuff working on a debian base, and it also includes a lot of the server and security tools that would probably end up on a Freedombox. _______________________________________________ Freedombox-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freedombox-discuss
