Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw From: padgett%tccslr.dnet@mmc.com (Padgett Peterson) Newsgroups: comp.virus Subject: Software Upgradable BIOS (PC) Message-ID: <0007.9105231331.AA02851@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 22 May 91 17:55:21 GMT Sender: Virus Discussion List Lines: 16 Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu >From: "William Walker C60223 x4570" >I feel that the prominent anti-virus researchers (and some of us >others) ought to collectively rise up and protest the software- >upgradable BIOS before it gets any acceptance. As one who a few careers ago made a living designing digital control systems ("flew" some digitally controlled gas-turbine engines with 8080s at Tullahoma in the seventies - Hi Bill), there does not have to be a problem if the hardware designers do their job. A EEPROM requires a special signal on one lead to tell it to write. If that lead is under hardware control and accessable only with the case open and a special plug in place that disables everything except a "load & verify BIOS" program, risk can be minimal. The point is not to "protest" the concept, it sounds like a good idea, but demand adequate safeguards (dare I say "standards") for its use.