[Freedom-misc] Does this mean Librem 15 can be Librebooted?

svhaab at gmail.com svhaab at gmail.com
Sat Oct 20 20:33:05 CEST 2018


 > rms leans on facts whenever possible, even if they dont seem to provide the  
entire story.

This displays the infatuation some people have about RMS.

Likely RMS said what he said being misinformed or uninformed.
Then libreboot cannot be right. RMS should have asked
libreboot before saying anything about purism.

 > does getting rid of signature checking provide free code? if not, that  
statement was correct.

does it mean users will have control of the firmare when free code is  
available? if so, that too was correct.

if those are both true, then getting rid of the checking probably is an  
important first step.

You made your own version of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise

If you want to install software on the intel cpu it has to be
verified by a key. The key is designed into the cpu. Only
pieces of software which is signed by the private key
will be verified and installed on the cpu. Intel has
the private key. Probably nobody else has it.
You have not said anything wrong, nor has RMS but you
cannot remove the verification key.

The intel management engine can likely take over the computer
in any way it wants to. Nsa cannot accept such a thing on their
computers. According to snowden's papers nsa can
disable the me. Maybe the me is the only backdoor on the
cpus because there are no snowden papers telling about
other cpu backdoors? We do not know.

 > this one from february about iommu support and tpm

Explain how is this relevant?
There is no reason to believe a backdoor in the
cpu cannot take control over a qubes
computer.

 > may 2017:  
https://puri.sm/posts/reverse-engineering-the-intel-management-engine-romp-module/

Any piece of software on the cpu can contain a back
door. People say not all the cpu software can get
reverse engineered.















More information about the Freedom-misc mailing list