Re: Part 2: System Structure

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

I should have been more precise. It is not the constructor that enables
any of this. It is the use of opaque storage.

shap

On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 12:12 -0400, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 14:21 +0200, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> > Scribit Bas Wijnen dies 19/05/2006 hora 11:34:
> > > Currently, I am root on my computer.  There is no way you can let me
> > > run a program on a GNU/Linux machine where I am root without allowing
> > > me to see the binary.
> > 
> > Would that be different when you are the owner on the constuctor-based
> > system? I don't think so.
> 
> Yes. It would be different. In the absence of a TPM chip, the system can
> be constructed in such a way that disk forensics (or more simply:
> examination of the installation CD) is required. In the *presence* of a
> TPM chip, inspection can be prohibited.
> 
> In practice, inspection of the code and initial data probably isn't a
> critical issue, and I think that allowing it in general poses no great
> difficulties.
> 
> The complicated issue is inspection of runtime state, which definitely
> *can* be prevented in a constructor system, with or without the TPM
> chip.
> 
> All of this assumes no bus probes.
> 
> shap
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> L4-hurd mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd