Stupid question: why signed bootloader is a problem for custom ROMs?

---

From what I know, bootloader loads kernel then gives control to it. So why we have to modify the bootloader? Can we just modify the kernel?

My understanding is: "signed bootloader + bootloader checking kernel's integrity" is a problem. Signed bootloader itself is not a problem.

Please educate me.

If I understand correctly:

The signed bootloader checks the signature of the kernel.

If you modify the kernel the bootloader won't recognize it.

This whole situation has me wondering "so what?" People talk about a signed bootloader like it's a permanent state. Uncrackable. Well of course it's crackable! Software encryptions are cracked all the time, what makes the Atrix any different?

Originally Posted by jwhited

This whole situation has me wondering "so what?" People talk about a signed bootloader like it's a permanent state. Uncrackable. Well of course it's crackable! Software encryptions are cracked all the time, what makes the Atrix any different?

Yes everything is crackable but it takes time for computers to crack them. Some encryptions can take 3 seconds to crack on a super computer while the more hardcore encryptions can take months to crack on that same super computer.

Originally Posted by Squadfer

Yes everything is crackable but it takes time for computers to crack them. Some encryptions can take 3 seconds to crack on a super computer while the more hardcore encryptions can take months to crack on that same super computer.

So I guess the question is, "Is anyone working on this?" If not, what needs to happen in order to get the ball rolling, so to speak?

Originally Posted by jwhited

So I guess the question is, "Is anyone working on this?" If not, what needs to happen in order to get the ball rolling, so to speak?

About 20 thousand dollars. Just for the support computer. :P

Originally Posted by jwhited

This whole situation has me wondering "so what?" People talk about a signed bootloader like it's a permanent state. Uncrackable. Well of course it's crackable! Software encryptions are cracked all the time, what makes the Atrix any different?

What makes the difference is the Atrix possibly has encryption/sighned bootloader going all the way to the hardware on the chip. Meaning you'd need to actually replace the chip on the main board with a non signed one

Originally Posted by Clienterror

What makes the difference is the Atrix possibly has encryption/sighned bootloader going all the way to the hardware on the chip. Meaning you'd need to actually replace the chip on the main board with a non signed one

Or perhaps it's possible to sandbox that part of the bootloader to its own region, and have an alternate loader that doesn't do a signature check?

I mean, I know this is all based on speculation, but I can imagine numerous possibilities.