coreboot VS appleprivacyletter

Why BIOS (did you mean UEFI?) when it runs the best boot loader, which is Coreboot¹. Many users would love to re-flash their bios/uefi for it, if it’s supported.

1: https://www.coreboot.org/

Coreboot is 0.6% C++.

NovaCustom ; some models come with Dasharo a coreboot distribution.

You can also use Mr. Chromebox Script to install Coreboot on your chromebook to get a UEFI BIOS on your Chromebook and then you can go an install either a linux distro or even Windows if you want. It's a pretty straightforward process and also reversable if you want to go back to just using ChromeOS.

Some models are available with Dasharo a [coreboot]https://www.coreboot.org/) distribution.

why no haswell_ult_dmi_registers for broadwell? in https://github.com/coreboot/coreboot/blob/master/util/inteltool/pcie.c

use croshfirmware.sh from https://github.com/coreboot/coreboot/tree/master/util/chromeos

There may be other protections to restrict SPI flash access for security reasons (so you might not be able to flash your custom firmware in the OS), but worst case you can use a HW flasher (or maybe USB flashback). Still, this doesn't address the elephant in the room - platform initialization code might be open-sourced, but that isn't everything. You'll still need to figure out the board-specific stuff (the Super I/O chip, chipset GPIOs, other peripherals, etc.). Using coreboot as an example, Intel provides the Firmware Support Package blob to handle platform initialization. I think AGESA is somewhat similar to this, though Intel publicly releases the binaries for use in coreboot/etc. Thanks to the FSP, coreboot has support for recent Intel chipsets. However, there is only support for two recent consumer boards: the MSI PRO Z690-A WiFi DDR4 and DDR5.

does anyone know what is https://github.com/coreboot/coreboot/blob/b12caef23bc1b29c2e658f2b728cc4beac1e62b9/src/northbridge/intel/haswell/vcu_mailbox.c

Download crosfirmware.sh and run it from command line: bash crosfirmware.sh droid

Hi, the Global Encryption Coalition doesn't take stands as a Coalition but members often do... and 90 or so groups and experts wrote a letter earlier this year in opposition to that: https://appleprivacyletter.com/ (note that ISOC, where I work, did not join that letter)

Part of me wonders if the calculus includes either (a) the open letter signed by (effectively) ~10k verified developers [1], (b) the complaint letters from groups like the EFF [2, 3], or (c) expert and qualified input from their (presumably huge) marketing department...

[1] https://appleprivacyletter.com/

An Open Letter Against Apple's Privacy-Invasive Content Scanning Technology

(e.g. https://appleprivacyletter.com/)

In that light, FISA is relevant. My statement was to show that not all dealings of the US government are public, because not all courts and legal proceedings are available to the public. So "serious risk of leaks to journalists" won't likely happen in that case.

Thanks for this link. He mentions Apple Privacy Letter which is another petition for the same issue.

You can sign the petition against Apple here.

I suggest you read the open letter circulating to better understand the problems with Apple’s implementation.