Larswad
|
2013-12-30
, 11:06
|
Posts: 385 |
Thanked: 426 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Gothenburg, Sweden
|
#211
|
|
2013-12-30
, 11:44
|
Community Council |
Posts: 4,920 |
Thanked: 12,867 times |
Joined on May 2012
@ Southerrn Finland
|
#212
|
one thing I just don't understand in this discussion (not arguing, just don't understand). Why would the modem as a part of the SoC be a threat to the information integrity? I see it merely as a wcdma transport, if encrypted information goes in it just transfer it to the uplink, it goes over the rnc, to the downlink and to the modem of some other device. Sure, we don't know what goes on inside it, but if the data is encrypted it remains so the whole way. I suppose you say that there is a possibility or probability that it would relay the data to a third party (e.g. government)? In such case I suppose that weakness could be present through the whole chain, as usual. compromised servers etc. I don't get it. It's a passive component right? Are we making a hen of a feather?
|
2013-12-30
, 11:54
|
Posts: 385 |
Thanked: 426 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Gothenburg, Sweden
|
#213
|
There are designs where the modem (and other parts of the system which run closed firmware blobs) is a separate HW entity which is connected to the main processing engine via a serial bus. In these cases you can treat it just as you describe, a black box that transmits your data up and down.
However, in some other designs the HW running closed blobs can directly access the flash&main memory of the device, and you have absolutely no guarantees on what it is reading/writing there (and when it does so)
The Qualcomm chipsets fall in the latter category
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Larswad For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2013-12-30
, 12:13
|
Guest |
Posts: n/a |
Thanked: 0 times |
Joined on
|
#214
|
Guess there could be reasons that we have no idea about why they want their modem code closed.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2013-12-30
, 13:43
|
Guest |
Posts: n/a |
Thanked: 0 times |
Joined on
|
#215
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2013-12-30
, 13:47
|
Posts: 728 |
Thanked: 1,217 times |
Joined on Oct 2011
|
#216
|
Sure, if its compromised. Well, there you go, full access to whatever on a system-level.
This is what I want to achieve :P
The Following User Says Thank You to ggabriel For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2013-12-30
, 14:07
|
Community Council |
Posts: 4,920 |
Thanked: 12,867 times |
Joined on May 2012
@ Southerrn Finland
|
#217
|
The Following User Says Thank You to juiceme For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2013-12-30
, 14:09
|
Posts: 1 |
Thanked: 0 times |
Joined on Dec 2013
|
#218
|
For me not baltic sea but "will it blend"
|
2013-12-30
, 14:14
|
Posts: 113 |
Thanked: 303 times |
Joined on Dec 2013
@ Germany
|
#219
|
Have you considered asking this in together.jolla.com so that people can vote and Jolla can react?
|
2013-12-31
, 10:03
|
|
Posts: 2,222 |
Thanked: 12,651 times |
Joined on Mar 2010
@ SOL 3
|
#220
|
Excellent idea to make your own blend.
Why not just keep the old bootloader to boot your image (factory reset) and for the the normal Jolla image, pinpoint which package that brings it in, modify it and share it ("ssu er unlockedboot").
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to joerg_rw For This Useful Post: | ||