> This has nothing to do with OpenBSD.
If OpenBSD would have a switch to disable usage of all BLOBs provided by OBSD
at once on an user desire.
Does OpenBSD have any other BLOBs except firmwares which can be
deleted/renamed/moved?
> Please read your own statement. You aren't qualified
Aaron Mason wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 3:39 AM Nick Holland
> wrote:
> >
> > On 2020-05-14 11:08, i...@aulix.com wrote:
> >
> > I actually had Adaptec give me a firmware update with a time bomb in
> > it, and didn't bother to tell me that after X days, it would brick my
> > adapter and
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 3:39 AM Nick Holland
wrote:
>
> On 2020-05-14 11:08, i...@aulix.com wrote:
>
> I actually had Adaptec give me a firmware update with a time bomb in
> it, and didn't bother to tell me that after X days, it would brick my
> adapter and prevent me from updating/downdating it.
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 04:25:11AM +, Mogens Jensen wrote:
> I was just trying out the fw_update program on OpenBSD 6.5, deleting/
> installing all the firmware and was wondering if fw_update will verify
> the files before installing?
Others pointed out that firmwares are signed.
For a while
Nick Holland wrote:
> On 2020-05-14 11:08, i...@aulix.com wrote:
> >> If that binary code was on a ROM, would it be less malicious?
> >
> > Cannot more recent and up to date binary code be more malicious than
> > old one in the ROM?
>
> This has nothing to do with OpenBSD. That can be true
On 2020-05-14 11:08, i...@aulix.com wrote:
>> If that binary code was on a ROM, would it be less malicious?
>
> Cannot more recent and up to date binary code be more malicious than
> old one in the ROM?
This has nothing to do with OpenBSD. That can be true for any kind of
code update, whether
i...@aulix.com wrote:
> > If that binary code was on a ROM, would it be less malicious?
>
> Cannot more recent and up to date binary code be more malicious than old one
> in the ROM?
Our firmwares do not replace code on ROM, since the hardware in question
HAS NO ROM.
> If that binary code was on a ROM, would it be less malicious?
Cannot more recent and up to date binary code be more malicious than old one in
the ROM?
Just because backdoor development is progressing as time goes and old backdoors
may be less dangerous compared to modern ones?
> If the
Janne Johansson wrote:
> Den tors 14 maj 2020 kl 06:27 skrev Mogens Jensen <
> mogens-jen...@protonmail.com>:
>
> > Normally I would just assume that fetched files are verified, but maybe
> > in the case with fw_update, the rationale is that firmware files are
> > binary blobs so we can't know
On 2020-05-14, Mogens Jensen wrote:
> I was just trying out the fw_update program on OpenBSD 6.5, deleting/
> installing all the firmware and was wondering if fw_update will verify
> the files before installing?
>
> There is a SHA256.sig in the remote firmware directory, but no
> indication from
I was just trying out the fw_update program on OpenBSD 6.5, deleting/
installing all the firmware and was wondering if fw_update will verify
the files before installing?
There is a SHA256.sig in the remote firmware directory, but no
indication from fw_update, even with verbose output, if this is
Den tors 14 maj 2020 kl 06:27 skrev Mogens Jensen <
mogens-jen...@protonmail.com>:
> Normally I would just assume that fetched files are verified, but maybe
> in the case with fw_update, the rationale is that firmware files are
> binary blobs so we can't know if they are malicious anyway,
The firmwares are packages, and are signed with the
/etc/signify/openbsd-XX-fs.pub key.
There is no risk.
Mogens Jensen wrote:
> I was just trying out the fw_update program on OpenBSD 6.5, deleting/
> installing all the firmware and was wondering if fw_update will verify
> the files before
13 matches
Mail list logo
