Talk:System Management BIOS

Sources

Re User:Dsimic "Whatever, I don't see myself arguing with you again, but those aren't primary sources because they belong to linux.com, DesktopEngineer.com, Codeproject.com, which surely makes them non-primary" . Primary sources aren't what you think they are, see WP:PRIMARY. Maybe you're thinking of independent of the topic? Widefox; talk 15:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Could you, please, explain why would something residing on linux.com, written by Joe Barr, be directly involved with SMBIOS? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Dsimic At least refs 1,3,5,6 appear to be primaries to me, so outnumber the two secondaries by 2:1. Two secondaries only just meet WP:GNG, and we should base on more, agree? Much ado about little, methinks. Widefox; talk 22:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's how I see the currently existing references:

1. http://www.nongnu.org/dmidecode/ – by no means a primary source
2. http://archive09.linux.com/articles/40412 – by no means a primary source
3. http://web.archive.org/web/20110903164158/http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/hardware/gg463136 – by no means a primary source
4. http://desktopengineer.com/story_20050215082742328 – by no means a primary source, although it's a low-quality one
5. http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/24730/SMBIOS-PeekM – by no means a primary source
6. http://sourceforge.net/p/tianocore/edk2/ci/3e3ddba24b0918d205d049c9da5c24785c446818/tree/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellDebug1CommandsLib/SmbiosView/ – by no means a primary source

I really don't see why those should be considered primary sources. However, we need more sources for the article. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Dsimic Adding "by no means" doesn't add anything to the conversation (about differentiating primary and secondary sources). http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/24730/SMBIOS-PeekM and http://sourceforge.net/p/tianocore/edk2/ci/3e3ddba24b0918d205d049c9da5c24785c446818/tree/ShellPkg/Library/UefiShellDebug1CommandsLib/SmbiosView/ are primaries for the material about themselves, yes ("by all known rational interpretations under the sun"). Suggest you get more opinions, or define what you understand by primary. Did you read the primary link? Widefox; talk 23:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've read the primary vs. non-primary sources guideline long time ago, not only when you pointed it out above. We'll have to agree to disagree, and wait for opinions from more editors. By the way, you don't need to ping me in your each reply, I have this page on my watchlist. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to add, out of the two links you listed above only the sourceforge.net one is a primary source about the presented material, but both are secondary sources about the SMBIOS, and that's what counts in this article. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Your interpretation of this is clearly flawed - see ref 1 - the content is about dmidecode from the dmidecode site, so it is clearly primary. Suggest you re-analyze or just drop the issue as mistaken.

The point being the article sourcing is weak based on primaries, which can more easily and usefully addressed for readers than bickering over a trivial maintenance tag. A primary tag is more useful as there are already several refs. The behavioural aspect of watching all these pages we've discussed on your page, and I will revisit if continued. Widefox; talk 18:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote above? Those are all secondary sources about the SMBIOS. Also, if it's all just "bickering over a trivial maintenance tag", why do you keep bickering? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, I would appreciate if you would stop with your highly unfriendly approach of constantly hounding me and causing me annoyance and distress. You're neither here to analyze behavior of any editor, including myself, nor to keep threating anyone with some "revisiting if continued". Do you understand what I'm saying? Thank you. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Went ahead and added more references to the article so you have no arguments to place my approach into the "bickering" bucket, and I'd appreciate if you'd remove the {{Primary sources}} tag from the article. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

SMBIOS globally unique motherboard ID shenanigans can lead to infosecurity management nnightmare.

It is said that SMBIOS standard includes a globally unique identifier for each SMBIOS enabled motherboard ever manufactured, but some unscrupulous hardware brands want to skip paying the industrial coalition for an assigned number space range. Thus they produce several thousands of motherboards with the exact same SMBIOS ID, hoping nobody will notice.

These shipments sometimes end up at an enterprise or large organization customer who uses image cloning for setup and cause havoc with centralized management, e.g. many computers appear with the same name and the security orchestrator system falsely believes OS patches have been installed and AV updated on all endpoints, when in fact only on one and infection comes in... I think the article could address this topic for public benefit. 80.99.111.252 (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This would have to be properly sourced, and it might be more relevant in Universally unique identifier than here. (SMBIOS just reports the UUID, it has no control over how it is generated or stored.) By design, GUIDs are not globally managed, so anyone can generate one (or many) at any time and be almost certain that there will be no collisions. Thus, there is no such thing as an "assigned number space range". --gribeco (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Please flesh out the "examples" a bit more.

For whatever reason I understand neither what the given examples "mean" nor how they relate either to each other or to the overarching subject matter.

For that matter, what is the failure mechanism in the given cases. Not asking for precise details but "some such and such fails" is less informative (to me) than "some such and such models become associated with incorrect such and such parameters, leading to failure". And I have idea what the various parts would be, so it would be nice for examples to tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C1:C100:9380:0:0:0:6886 (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)