Why I would never swap my FOOS OS to a proprietary one

Geschrieben am 5. Juni 2011 in FOSS, Linux von giggls || Kommentare deaktiviert

At my workplace we started the policy that devices leaving the campus must be encrypted. For this reason I created a USB pen-drive based boot scenario for our Debian based Laptops which allows for a completely encrypted drive using LUKS a couple of years ago.

However, the encryption of the pen-drives themselves has been a problem ever since we started to follow this policy. Devices like Kingston DataTraveler Vault are Windows only and alternative solutions are rare.

Fortunately I recently discovered the Corsair Padlock devices which might be a solution for people who need platform independent encrypted USB storage.

When testing one of those devices I thought about securing my laptop kernels with such a thing, because this would remove or at least reduce the attack option (unencrypted kernel and initrd) left in my encrypted laptop drive setup.

Well this is where the problem started and where one oft the best software support in the world (this of the linux kernel) was again
able to solve it by just sending a few mails around the globe.

So here comes the whole story:

Quite a lot of BIOS are unable to boot from a so called Superfloppy device (no partition at all). For this reason I just added one to my Padlock2 device. Unfortunately this device could not be detected by Linux but worked fine in M$-Windows.

Sending an error report and some debug output to the usb-storage mailing-list revealed some strange bug (or just a tricky windows only workaround to enable hardware encryption?) in the Padlock device not showing the correct partition Information on the first read by the OS. Windows reads a bunch of stuff before looking at the
partition data so the problem does not arise there.

And here comes the real beauty of FOOS. I got a patch which worked around the problem just a couple of hours later from somebody a thousand kilometeres away (credits go to Alan Stern) and fortunately this patch will go into Linux 3.0.1.

Problem solved :)

This is not the first time something like this happened. I’m a 100% certain that something like this would never be possible in a closed source world which is all about workarounds in application Software because it is just impossible to send an email to the maintainer of a particular piece of OS code.