linux-kernel - Re: Binary Drivers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 24 Dec 2006 22:05:08 +0100
From:	Rok Markovic <kernel@...ardia.eu>
To:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Binary Drivers

It seems that debate around cars and drivers has gone too far (IMHO). I 
do not think
that there is a question if we have any right to demand details about 
hardware from
manufactorers -> we are NOT. But I think that we have right to know how 
to use it.
I will translate this to CAR language - We  have to know how to drive 
the car but 
not all the details how is this done, so we can drive a car without the 
"driver". We
do not need an exact knowledge about engine, ECU, suspension,...

Now the real question:

Why are manufatorers afraid to give us this information?

and

Who can benefit from this?

Let's that our manufactorer is not bound on licenced part of hardware.

If we would know the answers on those questions we could start thinking 
how can we
convince Them to give  us information we need to develop our own drivers.

Cheers

Rok Markovic
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/