Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <dake@staszic.waw.pl> writes:
> Yet. What if somebody writes brick-test with a HUGE database of HDDs?
> Right now it's rather impossible for average mortal (not for goverment
> agencies etc.) due limited information.
This information is available. You can download IDE specs from net
and (binary DOS) programs dealing with disks are available from
manufacturers sites. Are those programs compliant with the specs
or not?
> I fully agree that it's hdd manufacturers job to make hardware not
> vulnerable and it can be done (jumper/crypto) and that they try to move
> responsibility to kernel/user.
I'm not sure if it's the case. There is no statement in OEM warranty
about any commands not listed in IDE specs. Such statement would make
using manufacturers tools (and probably other specialized tools)
impossible if you want the warranty.
That might vary between vendors of course.
We don't yet know if corrupted drive firmware can be fixed without
removing the HDD from the system, given the firmware file and required
utility/information is available.
> It is bad. When kernel IDE/ATA _driver_
> is standard compliant they cannot say "It's Linux kernel fault" when
> somebody fries your hdd.
I don't know it they can or not, but even Andrea confirms the driver
is compliant to the standard - as unlisted (extended) commands are.
-- Krzysztof Halasa Network Administrator- 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 : Mon Jul 31 2000 - 21:00:16 EST