[U-Boot] U-book and GPLv3? (fwd)

[ksi at koi8.net]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Jean-Christian de Rivaz wrote:

> ksi at koi8.net a ?crit :
> > On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Jean-Christian de Rivaz wrote:
> > 
> > > ksi at koi8.net a ?crit :
> > > > > Please point out precisely the regulations that require secure
> boot.
> > > > > Should be
> > > > > trivial as regulations are by definition public.
> > > > Do you happen to know what "Google" is?
> > > Yes, thanks :-)
> > > 
> > > For example this document have the term "secure boot":
> > > http://www.dcg.virginia.gov/supplier/sup-rules/standards.shtm
> > > The wording is this one:
> > > "D. Electronic Bingo
> > > [...]
> > > 3.
> > > [...] Security measures that may be employed to comply with these
> > > provisions include, but are not limited to the use of dongles,
> digital
> > > signature comparison hardware and software; secure boot loaders,
> > > encryption, and key and callback password systems."
> > > 
> > > The term "secure boot" is listed as a possibility, not as a
> requirement.
> > > 
> > > Now I don't have the time to parse every possible document that
> Google
> > > propose. This is why I politely ask a precise example, as I was
> under
> > > the impression that some peoples know very well this subject.
> > > 
> > > > This is our Nevada regulations:
> > > > 
> > > > http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs.htm
> > > I don't have the time to parse all the documents listed at this URL,
> but
> > > I downloaded the one I suspect is the more relevant:
> > > http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs/reg14_tech_stnds.pdf
> > > And I cannot found "secure boot" into it.
> > 
> > Are you looking for a precise phrase?
> 
> I want to look deeper into the subject. I think that if a regulation
> make a technical point as a requirement, then it must more or less
> describe the technical point so that it can be implemented is a way it
> work as expected. As an engineer, I think that a "secure boot" is only a
> buzz word: if the system can be physically modified, it can't be
> secured. If it can't be physically modified, then you don't need a
> secure boot.

It is not just technical measures; it is a complex of them and different
operating procedures.

When you hit a jackpot the machine should be immediately stopped (hang) in
that state and nobody should touch it. Then a controller comes into the
scene. He pulls all the EPROM chips from the machine and checks them with
MD5 or whatever is approved and checks every single piece of programmable
hardware with some procedure approved for this particular model. That would
not prevent a cheating casino employee from replacing some EPROM chip (or
whatever) with his own one but it will NOT allow for stuffing the original
one back once the jackpot is hit so the cheating will be detected.

That's only one example...

> > > > > I failed to understand how a secure booted machine can be
> updated by
> > > the
> > > > > manufacturer to fix a bug for example, but not by a customer.
> > > > The manufacturer can _NOT_ update his machine at will. _EACH AND
> > > EVERY_
> > > > change goes through the same approval process.
> > > Still, technically the hardware have only two possibility:
> > > 1) it can be reprogrammed.
> > > 2) it can't be reprogrammed.
> > > 
> > > If 1), I dont' see how the a boot loader can't be replaced by a less
> > > secure one and let boot anything.
> > > 
> > > if 2), there is not point as nobody can possibly make any update, so
> the
> > > firmware don't have to be secured.
> > 
> > You are trying to make sense out of the regulations. It doesn't work
> this
> > way. If regulations say "one must use a screwdriver with a red handle
> on
> > this screw" one must use the red screwdriver. No matter if it makes
> sense or
> > not. If you feel it's bullshit you should fight for the regulation to
> change
> > that is a very long (years, not months) and very difficult process. In
> the
> > meantime you _MUST_ use that red screwdriver.
> > 
> > Then you should read not only technical part but also a procedural one
> on
> > how approvals are given. You must persuade the Commision to give you
> an
> > approval. And they give them at their discretion. And you can NOT sue
> them.
> 
> In this second part, I don't make reference to regulation. I only talk
> about the technical problem of reprogramming a system.

Ah, that's absolutely orthogonal issue... We do NOT do something stupid from
engineering standpoint because it makes sense (and quite often it doesn't)
but because the regulations and the Commission's understanding of them
requires that.

Yes, many of those are stupid and outdated but they do a good job anyways;
there is not that much cheating in our casinos.

> > Finally don't forget that your employees all want to get their salary
> paid
> > and that comes from your business revenues. No approval == No
> business. Good
> > luck fighting regulations.
> 
> Why do you think I want to fight regulation ? I actually be more
> concerned about understanding how a proprietary hidden piece of code
> into u-boot can possibly make a system satisfy a security regulation.

It is not just hardware/software. The latter is only a part of solution. It
is NOT the machine that pays that jackpot, it is real humans. There is no
way to make the system unbreakable and impossible to cheat on. That's why an
additional layer of security is being able to DETECT that system had been
cheated on.

---
******************************************************************
*  KSI at home    KOI8 Net  < >  The impossible we do immediately.  *
*  Las Vegas   NV, USA   < >  Miracles require 24-hour notice.   *
******************************************************************