"Albert D. Cahalan" wrote:
>
> Adding a jumper won't go over well due to the trivial cost,
> but that doesn't mean we should have to tolerate hardware that
> accepts self-destruct commands.
>
> The answer is simple: the drive contains the vendors public key,
> and the drive refuses firmware updates that are not signed.
>
> Well duh. Andre, how about pushing for this at the next standards
> meeting? The extra safety would do us all some good, including
> the Linux-2.0.36 and non-Linux users.
My guess is that this is considered outside the scope of the ATA-ATAPI
standards. They deal with transfer of data to/from the media. These
commands are for configuring/programming the firmware.
>
> Might as well push for a standard firmware update command too.
> (guessing from your posts, this is currently vendor-specific)
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-- =============== -- Tim --------------------==============++==============--------------------- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 23 2000 - 21:00:19 EST