3 ms·
We should soon have a viable lowRISC implementation for those highly sensitive tasks. Honestly though, the Intel ME thing is quite worrisome.
by diymaker 10y ago
We should soon have a viable lowRISC implementation for those highly sensitive tasks. Honestly though, the Intel ME thing is quite worrisome.
- craftkiller 10y agoDefinitely a step forward, but couldn't either the fab or the FPGA put in a back door? http://www.darkreading.com/threat-intelligence/researchers-demo-how-to-build-nearly-invisible-backdoor-in-computer-chips/d/d-id/1325786 http://www.darkreading.com/threat-intelligence/researchers-d...
- nitrogen 10y agoSpeculating: Yes, but it's probably a bit harder to make a backdoor in an FPGA that can anticipate and manipulate a custom design. The backdoor would have to be smart enough to know it's running a CPU, although if it could just detect that it's running multiple Ethernet ports, it could still act as a silent forwarder for evil packets or a data mangler. It could conceivably also try to send the FPGA design to the backdoor's owner for them to tell the backdoor what to do next.
- colejohnson66 10y agoYes, the fab could put in a backdoor. That's why you need to build your own. But, what if the machinery you purchase has a backdoor? Now you need to build your own fab machinery! It's backdoors all the way down. There always has to be some level of trust.
- troymc 10y agoI'm not sure how you put a backdoor in an atom.
- jdub 10y agoEasy: You put the backdoor into the atoms it's entangled with.
- PhasmaFelis 10y agoDoesn't really matter, though. If you have to build your tools up from that level, it's going to cost so much that only governments and huge corporations can do it--and those are exactly the people installing the backdoors in the first place, so we're back to square one.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]