decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Easy enough to implement | 474 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Easy enough to implement
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 05 2012 @ 02:44 PM EDT

John: Hmm... settings.... manage software... AppX... delete.

    popup: Please insert the key required to remove the software
John: umm... what key?
    popup: I'm sorry, you're not authorised to adminster that app.
The key required: the private key that the app was signed with.

Really... it's not that default to implement that kind of "security" mechanism. One only needs to have a set of "ethics" that puts increased income above individuals rights/safety/etc.

UEFI is currently focused on boot. But boot altering malicious software is not the whole of malicious software out there. I'd be surprised if it was a significant percentage. And I'm not adding in the addware type of malicious software, strictly viruses/worms/trojans/etc.

So... this signing plan was brought in to tackle viruses that target the boot sector. Do you really believe the signing won't extend to the other software on the device? That it won't ever be used to block someone from removing software?

Apple is already using the technique to prevent people from installing the software on hardware of their choice. Is it really that hard to imagine using it to block removal?

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )