I'm curious what you mean by "Firmware" and "Microcode". The way you describe this seems to indicate you think rolling back to previous a signed release is a huge problem.

If by Firmware you mean the BIOS/bootloader, then I am pretty sure that by "rolling back" you would typically not overall impact the operation of the operating system that is booted by the old firmware. If there is some vulnerability in the firmware, you may be able to exploit it to boot something malicious, perhaps, but I think you would have trouble using it productively due to the signed OS filesystem.

If by this rollback you mean the OS image, then one is easily able to determine that an old image is being used. Whenever I have rolled back on ChromeOS, I have always had all my user data wiped too, so you haven't actually obtained access to anything by rolling back the OS Image.

I am genuinely interested in the use case you are concerned about, because in my research and use of chromeos (which has been ever since it came out), I have found the security of it to be top-notch. The team who made it and maintains it has genuinely thought through the concerning use cases and mitigated them well. Some corner cases have not been addressed, but I have found that when they are not a big concern for the ChromeOS team, they typically are not a concern for me either.

Now, this may sound like I love Google, which is not the case either. Their business practices, especially as of late, have been very concerning. However, I still stand by my original statement that I think Chromebooks (and ChromeOS in general) is a very well designed and secured system.

Chromebooks (running Linux underneath) validate their system every boot (Even more thoroughly than Apple, I would say). It is actually really well thought out, but limits what can be natively installed on the system.

Here is a link to Google's design for Verified Boot in ChromeOS:
https://www.chromium.org/chrom...

I have the Grado Labs SR60i, and they cost about $79, but they sure sound great. Check them out at http://www.gradolabs.com/page_headphones.php?item=f4ba8830232696b5f580bd531134b668

I purchased them online from http://goodcans.com/HeadphoneStore/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=83&zenid=16a9581e498c2dc5bd2481384bd45a74

They are especially known for their flat frequency response, and allowing you to hear what other headphones can not reproduce. In my experience, this has been the case. They are incredibly well-built, for the price. The cable for them is very flexible, but also rather thick. I am very happy with them.

I spent a few minutes looking for the same thing, and found that Firefox includes a check. If you visit an HTTPS site that is not secure, you will get a message in the Error Console under Messages saying something like this:

site.example.com : server does not support RFC 5746, see CVE-2009-3555

For more information, see https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security:Renegotiation

What you need is a Wi-Spy, available from http://www.metageek.net/ These devices scan the RF for what is active. It helps detect 802.11 and other RF interference sources, and may help you find a better channel to use. Note, I am not affiliated with Metageek, other than being a happy customer. I support wireless networks as part of my job, and I can tell you that spectrum analysis is what you need.