| > You never could answer to them. I did reply to them plenty of times. Here you go doing the exact same thing again - ignoring 100% of what's being said, then claiming "no one can respond". > You only talk about the lack of security of Pureboot and never showed the code breaking it. If you think a piece of code is needed to understand why it's a joke, then I don't even understand what is wrong with you. LMAO. The whole thing is conceptually botched, and they pretty much admitted as much. 1. Boot block performs measurements of itself, its settings and everything down the chain for attestation. 2. There's nothing protecting the boot block. 3. A malicious boot block can lie about measurements. 4. If the goal is to defend against an attacker who tampers with the BIOS chip - then it fails at doing so miserably because an attacker can just use a boot block that lies about the measurements. Seriously, what good is showing you the code if you don't even conceptually understand how the thing works? You know, there is a famous saying: A farmer does not need to know how to lay eggs to know whether an egg is good or bad. In our case, the egg is already rotten from the get-go. This is not a "Ohhh something has such bad code I can attack it using XYZ method, wait and see!" situation. This is a situation where "Your logic doesn't even make any sense to begin with." Perhaps, just perhaps, you can benefit from just spending 5 minutes thinking a bit about how the whole thing actually works at a very high level and read what I said above. |