qualitative question about hackability
70 views
Skip to first unread message
Trever
Nov 19, 2012, 9:04:29 PM11/19/12
to chromium-...@chromium.org
Jumping off this page:
... it appears that the Samsung ARM based chromebook is the most hackable of the entire lot of official Chrome devices.
True? False?
Eg. could just be documentation of stumpy's guts and such isn't up to speed yet. But I do recall something about all of "the firmware" for the ARM device being open source, whereas not so the x86 (including 64 bit) devices.
Ottavio Caruso
Nov 19, 2012, 10:10:30 PM11/19/12
to chromium-...@chromium.org
On 20 November 2012 02:04, Trever <trr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do recall something about all of "the firmware" for the ARM device being
> open source
If it is, it must be very hidden from the general public.
> I do recall something about all of "the firmware" for the ARM device being
> open source
--
Ottavio
Trever
Nov 19, 2012, 10:56:52 PM11/19/12
to chromium-...@chromium.org
Also the simple removeal of an external screw to allow flashing your own firmware/keys. Not aware of such an easy feature on other existing Chrome devices.
Olof Johansson
Nov 19, 2012, 11:56:14 PM11/19/12
to trr...@gmail.com, chromium-...@chromium.org
Jumping off this page:... it appears that the Samsung ARM based chromebook is the most hackable of the entire lot of official Chrome devices.True? False?
I would say false -- all Chrome OS devices have been just as friendly for hobbyists and tinkerers by allowing for developer mode out of the box, i.e. no need for any special trickery to "jailbreak" a device and get root access to it. We're only careful to make sure that have _both_ a hobbyist-friendly device _and_ a secure-by-default device for the users who just want a simple and secure Chrome OS system.
Eg. could just be documentation of stumpy's guts and such isn't up to speed yet.
Not quite sure I follow what you mean here, the guts aren't exactly kept secret. Maybe none of the teardown websites have done articles covering it, since it's not quite as exotic hardware and a fairly normal x86 system on the inside (with a few Chrome OS-specific features).
But I do recall something about all of "the firmware" for the ARM device being open source, whereas not so the x86 (including 64 bit) devices.
The only piece of the current x86 firmware that is not open source (provided as a binary) is the memory initialization code (MRC) that comes from Intel. The rest of coreboot/u-boot/vboot are all open and public and can be found on git.chromium.org.
Note that the Atom-based x86 machines shipped with proprietary firmware that is not open source. Only the Samsung 550 Chromebook and the Chromebox (and the new $200 Acer) have the fully open coreboot firmware stack.
-Olof
Trever
Nov 20, 2012, 2:49:23 AM11/20/12
to chromium-...@chromium.org, trr...@gmail.com
On Monday, November 19, 2012 8:56:20 PM UTC-8, Olof Johansson wrote:
Eg. could just be documentation of stumpy's guts and such isn't up to speed yet.Not quite sure I follow what you mean here, the guts aren't exactly kept secret. Maybe none of the teardown websites have done articles covering it, since it's not quite as exotic hardware and a fairly normal x86 system on the inside (with a few Chrome OS-specific features).
What I mean is just that a person can unscrew an external screw to get RW access to the RO firmware, and this is clearly documented in the case of Snow. Very cool.
How do I accomplish the same thing on, say, Stumpy? I have a disassembled Stumpy and haven't yet found the place to effect the firmware. In fact, didn't even know it was possible until recently. See also: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/chromium-os-discuss/P64GQOQNZMw
It would be more hobbyist friendly if this information were clearly documented as it is with Snow, you know?
To be able to (eg.) write in one's own public key for a non-Google full verified boot is a nice feature. I agree about the "openness" in principle of the machines and the codes. To say that one Chrome model is more hackable than another doesn't imply the other units are closed or "unhackable" in the way some competitors might do.
I do think that in practical terms, the minimalist core/uboot makes hacking a challenge, given present day documentation and fussiness of the initialization code for the machines. It makes *current* documentation that much more important... and saying "just look at the source" really isn't what some people want to do if they are (eg.) just trying to boot other OS'es or want to sign their own distro using their own keys (all the way through).
Again, not complaining about the openness in principle. In fact, in principle, the Chrome OS team has made some really cool stuff here. That's the point. That's what makes getting this information to take advantage of it all the more important, and all the more frustrating to not find it more readily (not to mention that we are having to trouble you guys for this info in mailing lists! :-).
Thanks,
T
Mike Frysinger
Nov 20, 2012, 5:22:10 AM11/20/12
to ottavio2006...@yahoo.com, Chromium OS discuss
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
source tree or http://git.chromium.org/, then maybe they shouldn't be
hacking on it in the first place
-mike
> On 20 November 2012 02:04, Trever wrote:
>> I do recall something about all of "the firmware" for the ARM device being
>> open source
>
> If it is, it must be very hidden from the general public.
yes, if the general public is incapable of browsing a checked out
>> I do recall something about all of "the firmware" for the ARM device being
>> open source
>
> If it is, it must be very hidden from the general public.
source tree or http://git.chromium.org/, then maybe they shouldn't be
hacking on it in the first place
-mike
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
This conversation is locked
You cannot reply and perform actions on locked conversations.
0 new messages