4 ms·

FTA: This project is about having a standard, physically secure computer that anyone can use – as open as we can make it. All these concepts are important, and

by mthoms 10y ago

FTA: This project is about having a standard, physically secure computer that anyone can use – as open as we can make it. All these concepts are important, and they mean that x86 and flawless out-of-the-box Windows support are not optional. There are reasons everyone is using x86, even in the security community and in governmental agencies around the world: compatibility, performance, and security. Make no mistake, some of us own Yeeloongs, and others are veterans of the silicon industry. We would love to ship a completely free and usable desktop processor, but we know very well that there is no alternative. Some people seem to think that switching to AMD can solve problems related Intel’s Management Engine (ME), microcode, or SMM. It doesn’t, as there are equivalents of these technologies in all recent x86 processors.

na85 10y ago
That's all fine and good but they should not advertise it as secure if it's not.
- briceb8e 10y ago
  It's secure, "trust us".
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  They advertise it as "physically-secure" in the text. I didn't watch the video. They explicitly call out many risks, why they're there, and what they do about them.
  - talltower 10y ago
    We have built a list of hacks that we addressed and how. Please feel free to read up on all of these and more in our Product Description in the section "Potential attacks prevented" : https://www.orwl.org/wiki/index.php?title=File:ORWL_PRD_v0.61.pdf https://www.orwl.org/wiki/index.php?title=File:ORWL_PRD_v0.6...
- lallysingh 10y ago
  There's no such thing as "secure", and frankly complaining that anything that has better security than regular products shouldn't advertise as such is ridiculous. How else is there any progress when the community's just pulling everyone down with this "it's no good if it isn't completely perfect" crap?
  - na85 10y ago
    Frankly I'm not sure it is any better than regular products. It still has a backdoor baked in. Keep on downvoting because you disagree, though.
    - mastazi 10y ago
      > Frankly I'm not sure it is any better than regular products. Care to elaborate? > It still has a backdoor baked in. True, but this does not explain or validate your previous statement. You are saying: "A has these pros and this con, B has the same con but none of the pros, hence A and B are the same". This sounds like a poor argument to me. > Keep on downvoting because you disagree, though. I believe that you are being downvoted because your last two comments are poorly articulated.
  - bwindels 10y ago
    This product makes full disk encryption a bit more convenient, but that's about it. Even that turns something to know in something to have, which you could argue is easier to coerce someone into handing over. The parent comment is right to point out this computer has a fully functioning Intel ME, running it's secret, unaudited, possibly backdoored, firmware on the co-processer which runs even when switched off, and can interact with the rest of the system undetected. Any "secure" system with this foundation isn't really secure. IMHO a product which would focus more on this (like libreboot laptops) can make a bigger claim on doing something for security than this.
    - talltower 10y ago
      I respect your opinion on this. We sought to build hardware that is a significant step up from what is available on the market today in terms of access control and tamper protection. We also open source the BIOS and customize it the most we can afford to minimize the ME capability thanks to Eltan's help. Secure cannot be an absolute state, it can only be temporary... till the 1st one finds a way to get in. Execution of non-auditable code is what we deal with on nearly every machine on the market. We are minimizing this, while still staying compatible with peoples use models. We are as open and transparent as we can legally be. In our plan, this is only one step in the direction of taking back control of the machines we all are working on and want to trust completely. https://www.orwl.org/wiki/index.php?title=File:SowDESIGN-SHIFTORWLPUBLIC20160902.pdf https://www.orwl.org/wiki/index.php?title=File:SowDESIGN-SHI...

by mthoms 10y ago

na85 10y ago

That's all fine and good but they should not advertise it as secure if it's not.

briceb8e 10y ago
It's secure, "trust us".
nickpsecurity 10y ago
They advertise it as "physically-secure" in the text. I didn't watch the video. They explicitly call out many risks, why they're there, and what they do about them.
- talltower 10y ago
  We have built a list of hacks that we addressed and how. Please feel free to read up on all of these and more in our Product Description in the section "Potential attacks prevented" : https://www.orwl.org/wiki/index.php?title=File:ORWL_PRD_v0.61.pdf https://www.orwl.org/wiki/index.php?title=File:ORWL_PRD_v0.6...
lallysingh 10y ago
There's no such thing as "secure", and frankly complaining that anything that has better security than regular products shouldn't advertise as such is ridiculous. How else is there any progress when the community's just pulling everyone down with this "it's no good if it isn't completely perfect" crap?
- na85 10y ago
  Frankly I'm not sure it is any better than regular products. It still has a backdoor baked in. Keep on downvoting because you disagree, though.
  - mastazi 10y ago
    > Frankly I'm not sure it is any better than regular products. Care to elaborate? > It still has a backdoor baked in. True, but this does not explain or validate your previous statement. You are saying: "A has these pros and this con, B has the same con but none of the pros, hence A and B are the same". This sounds like a poor argument to me. > Keep on downvoting because you disagree, though. I believe that you are being downvoted because your last two comments are poorly articulated.
- bwindels 10y ago
  This product makes full disk encryption a bit more convenient, but that's about it. Even that turns something to know in something to have, which you could argue is easier to coerce someone into handing over. The parent comment is right to point out this computer has a fully functioning Intel ME, running it's secret, unaudited, possibly backdoored, firmware on the co-processer which runs even when switched off, and can interact with the rest of the system undetected. Any "secure" system with this foundation isn't really secure. IMHO a product which would focus more on this (like libreboot laptops) can make a bigger claim on doing something for security than this.
  - talltower 10y ago
    I respect your opinion on this. We sought to build hardware that is a significant step up from what is available on the market today in terms of access control and tamper protection. We also open source the BIOS and customize it the most we can afford to minimize the ME capability thanks to Eltan's help. Secure cannot be an absolute state, it can only be temporary... till the 1st one finds a way to get in. Execution of non-auditable code is what we deal with on nearly every machine on the market. We are minimizing this, while still staying compatible with peoples use models. We are as open and transparent as we can legally be. In our plan, this is only one step in the direction of taking back control of the machines we all are working on and want to trust completely. https://www.orwl.org/wiki/index.php?title=File:SowDESIGN-SHIFTORWLPUBLIC20160902.pdf https://www.orwl.org/wiki/index.php?title=File:SowDESIGN-SHI...