4 ms·
I don't get it. This would not increase trust since we can not check if the source actually corresponds to the binary in the processor. It would need to be repe
by ysleepy 10y ago
I don't get it. This would not increase trust since we can not check if the source actually corresponds to the binary in the processor. It would need to be repeatably build-able with the result matching the signature of the default blob.
They could release a signed NO-OP firmware that is so small it would be easy to verify as benign using a disassembler. Potential of more secret code is always there, but being this malicious would be highly damaging to the company.
- rainforest 10y agoIs there any way you can trust the CPU to tell you what code in the PSP is running though?
- ryanlol 10y ago>It would need to be repeatably build-able with the result matching the signature of the default blob. Huh? You can most certainly verify if an unsigned blob matches a signed blob.
- ysleepy 10y ago(?) Obviously, but building a bit-by-bit identical compiler output is moderately hard.
- ryanlol 10y agoI must've misunderstood you then. Anyway, surely "This would not increase trust" is a bit of an overly strong statement. Even if AMD didn't release reproducible build instructions, having the source code would still make it significantly easier to detect AMD shipping different (compiled) code. But yeah, open sourcing the PSP without reproducible builds would be a little silly.