5 ms·

While the backdoor and surveillance arguments are good, and the chips are very likely backdoored (if not deliberately then by undetected bugs) there are other i

While the backdoor and surveillance arguments are good, and the chips are very likely backdoored (if not deliberately then by undetected bugs) there are other issues with this closed source firmware. Let's say another bug [1] is found that lets anyone remotely control your computer, but Intel becomes bankrupt, or just doesn't see it as a big enough threat to roll out a firmware update. You then essentially have a computer that you can't use, due to the fact it's not secure and anything done on it could be compromised. Maybe not a massive deal for the average home user who would just buy another laptop. But let's say a large company buys 10k laptops all with an Intel chip inside it. Then Intel goes bankrupt, becomes incompetent (i.e. can not resolve bugs), refuses to upgrade firmware, or something else. When the next massive security bug is found (which is inevitable with all code, open source or closed) you are left essentially with 10k unusable laptops. If the code was open sourced, the large company could pay someone else to fix the problem, or what's more likely is someone in the open source community would fix it for us. The fact you have another processor running beside your main one, that has full access to everything you do without your permission, knowledge or ability to stop it should worry everyone. Even if there are no backdoors or bugs in the code right now, it's a very dangerous precedent to set that we buy hardware we can not control. Maybe one day Intel decides to put an expiry date in their chips, or some DRM to prevent you watching certain content without a license. These restrictions can't be good for society in the long term, can they? But the biggest problem should be for large companies and corporations. They are putting the faith of their own business into Intel, which like all businesses could one day fail, big time. 1. https://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/uk/en/architecture-and-technology/intel-amt-vulnerability-announcement.html https://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/uk/en/architecture-and-t...

CamelCaseName 9y ago
I find it hard to believe that such a scenario could play out in reality. Surely some government would step forward and compel or even fund a bankrupt Intel to fix such a disaster. But perhaps I am wet behind the ears, have there been any similar cases on a similar scale in the past?
- majewsky 9y ago
  The government will compel Intel to fix a government backdoor? Sounds unlikely.
  - jabl 9y ago
    Adding insult to injury, Intel has something called "High Assurance Platform" (HAP) which allows to disable the ME. Available only to three-letter agencies, of course; what would the world come to if us plebs were allowed to do anything like that?
- PeachPlum 9y ago
  Fix this computer or got to prison. How would that work ?
  - derefr 9y ago
    More like, release your signing keys to us so we can fix the problem (and future similar problems) or go to prison.
userbinator 9y ago
The fact that it's closed source is not actually the biggest problem --- it's the fact that the hardware completely refuses to run firmware that's not signed by Intel, and Intel is not giving you the keys or any other way out. Intel could open-source the firmware, but without any way to use it on the hardware, it'd be useless for anything but finding exploits --- arguably an even worse position. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization All you need is the ability to run your own code on the hardware, legally or otherwise (regardless of what laws exist, no one can stop you from flipping the bits on storage media you possess...), and the community will do the rest. Having the ability to extract the existing code is also immensely helpful, but I'd consider source to be more of a bonus than an absolute requirement. BIOS modding, custom Android ROMs, iOS jailbreaks, console homebrew, whatever else --- you don't need source code, just the ability to run your own. Crackers, reversers, and security researchers have long been fine operating under the saying: "Source code? We don't need no stinkin' source code!" ...and IMHO the software community could do well to promote this sort of introspection more, to encourage tinkering and exploration and analysis, in contrast to the "can't do anything without source code", "can't do anything without someone else telling you that you can" attitude prevalent today; but, and this may be a bit of a conspiracy theory, I suspect the establishment generally does not approve of such a "hacker" attitude precisely because it means they can't hide anything by "closing the source".
- rbanffy 9y ago
  > it'd be useless for anything but finding exploits For all unmodified parts of MINIX that ended up in ME 11, this is precisely the case.
- monocasa 9y ago
  Hence why GPLv3 and it's anti-Tivoization clause is so important.
pjmlp 9y ago
You just described the actual situation with most Android devices, smart TVs, home routers and IoT of shame.
- arca_vorago 9y ago
  I wonder when people are going to realize RMS was right the whole time. I'm constantly amazed at the pushback here and other forums against copyleft-foss.
porfirium 9y ago
Is there no way to flash the ME without expensive tools (i.e. software-side)? If Intel goes bankrupt they might just release the keys needed to disable/update the ME.
- turblety 9y ago
  Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be how the computer industry works. Think of all the game, software, hardware companies that don't exist any more. How many of them have released their source code, hardware specifications or given any help for previous customers. Generally the companies got "more important" things to worry about if they're going bankrupt. Sorry to answer your question, yes it's actually quite easy to flash the firmware. You don't actually need any hardware for it (unless you brick your device somehow). The only issue (as you stated) is it must be signed by Intel to work.
- cyphar 9y ago
  Flashing ME firmware is quite trivial for older laptops -- you just need a flash programmer, a raspberry pi and some patience. It's one of the key parts of how me_cleaner[1] works -- you "clean up" the firmware and flash a new version. However, newer Intel CPUs have BootGuard[2] which makes this impossible. But I wouldn't hold my breath that they'll release the keys -- why would they? Releasing keys is the last thing you'll think of if a decades-old business is going up in flames. [1]: https://github.com/corna/me_cleaner https://github.com/corna/me_cleaner [2]: https://github.com/corna/me_cleaner/wiki/Intel-Boot-Guard https://github.com/corna/me_cleaner/wiki/Intel-Boot-Guard
msla 9y ago
Moreover, Intel could selectively release patches for only the newer chips, providing an incentive to upgrade. Intel deliberately creating such holes and then only fixing them on more expensive models would be possible as well, but the PR from that one might be distasteful enough to hurt Intel.
- harry8 9y ago
  So like the way apple security updates gimp the performance of your device? These kind of business practises are Apple's biggest contribution to the computing industry. Didn't invent them but made them absolutely "the norm" and everyone, even hardware manufacturers want to emulate Apple's stunning success. I used to hate Microsoft business practises, Apple are far, far worse the only reason they didn't seem it was because they had such a pathetic market share. Only one thing has changed. Think different. Think critically about what Apple are. If Intel copy apple here, can you object to intel doing it but not Apple with a straight face?
  - msla 9y ago
    Why do you think I would ever defend Apple in any way, shape, or form?
    - harry8 9y ago
      I don't. The comment above is much more general but definitely provoked by your observation. "You" is used in the sense of the somewhat archaic "one". Language imprecision is a thing. "If Intel copy apple here, can one object to intel doing it but not Apple with a straight face?"
fencepost 9y ago
> When the next massive security bug is found (which is inevitable with all code, open source or closed) you are left essentially with 10k unusable laptops. While this is less useful for devices going outside the network (e.g. the laptops you mention), I suspect that the big enterprise response is going to have to be smarter networks. I can easily picture high end fully managed switches becoming more like firewalls, possibly even to the stage of deep packet inspection for recognized patterns. Not having worked with this, does the ME get its own IP or piggyback looking for particular patterns in packets? And how feasible is it to detect by testing for missing packets (or spurious ones if they're received and passed through?)
hypervis0r 9y ago
That security bug you're talking about can be patched the same way it's exploited. No source code doesn't mean "all is lost". Instead of writing a payload that steals your private keys you just write one that patches out the vulnerability.

CamelCaseName 9y ago

I find it hard to believe that such a scenario could play out in reality. Surely some government would step forward and compel or even fund a bankrupt Intel to fix such a disaster. But perhaps I am wet behind the ears, have there been any similar cases on a similar scale in the past?

majewsky 9y ago
The government will compel Intel to fix a government backdoor? Sounds unlikely.
- jabl 9y ago
  Adding insult to injury, Intel has something called "High Assurance Platform" (HAP) which allows to disable the ME. Available only to three-letter agencies, of course; what would the world come to if us plebs were allowed to do anything like that?
PeachPlum 9y ago
Fix this computer or got to prison. How would that work ?
- derefr 9y ago
  More like, release your signing keys to us so we can fix the problem (and future similar problems) or go to prison.

userbinator 9y ago

The fact that it's closed source is not actually the biggest problem --- it's the fact that the hardware completely refuses to run firmware that's not signed by Intel, and Intel is not giving you the keys or any other way out. Intel could open-source the firmware, but without any way to use it on the hardware, it'd be useless for anything but finding exploits --- arguably an even worse position. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization All you need is the ability to run your own code on the hardware, legally or otherwise (regardless of what laws exist, no one can stop you from flipping the bits on storage media you possess...), and the community will do the rest. Having the ability to extract the existing code is also immensely helpful, but I'd consider source to be more of a bonus than an absolute requirement. BIOS modding, custom Android ROMs, iOS jailbreaks, console homebrew, whatever else --- you don't need source code, just the ability to run your own. Crackers, reversers, and security researchers have long been fine operating under the saying: "Source code? We don't need no stinkin' source code!" ...and IMHO the software community could do well to promote this sort of introspection more, to encourage tinkering and exploration and analysis, in contrast to the "can't do anything without source code", "can't do anything without someone else telling you that you can" attitude prevalent today; but, and this may be a bit of a conspiracy theory, I suspect the establishment generally does not approve of such a "hacker" attitude precisely because it means they can't hide anything by "closing the source".

rbanffy 9y ago
> it'd be useless for anything but finding exploits For all unmodified parts of MINIX that ended up in ME 11, this is precisely the case.
monocasa 9y ago
Hence why GPLv3 and it's anti-Tivoization clause is so important.

pjmlp 9y ago

You just described the actual situation with most Android devices, smart TVs, home routers and IoT of shame.

arca_vorago 9y ago
I wonder when people are going to realize RMS was right the whole time. I'm constantly amazed at the pushback here and other forums against copyleft-foss.

porfirium 9y ago

Is there no way to flash the ME without expensive tools (i.e. software-side)? If Intel goes bankrupt they might just release the keys needed to disable/update the ME.

turblety 9y ago
Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be how the computer industry works. Think of all the game, software, hardware companies that don't exist any more. How many of them have released their source code, hardware specifications or given any help for previous customers. Generally the companies got "more important" things to worry about if they're going bankrupt. Sorry to answer your question, yes it's actually quite easy to flash the firmware. You don't actually need any hardware for it (unless you brick your device somehow). The only issue (as you stated) is it must be signed by Intel to work.
cyphar 9y ago
Flashing ME firmware is quite trivial for older laptops -- you just need a flash programmer, a raspberry pi and some patience. It's one of the key parts of how me_cleaner[1] works -- you "clean up" the firmware and flash a new version. However, newer Intel CPUs have BootGuard[2] which makes this impossible. But I wouldn't hold my breath that they'll release the keys -- why would they? Releasing keys is the last thing you'll think of if a decades-old business is going up in flames. [1]: https://github.com/corna/me_cleaner https://github.com/corna/me_cleaner [2]: https://github.com/corna/me_cleaner/wiki/Intel-Boot-Guard https://github.com/corna/me_cleaner/wiki/Intel-Boot-Guard

msla 9y ago

Moreover, Intel could selectively release patches for only the newer chips, providing an incentive to upgrade. Intel deliberately creating such holes and then only fixing them on more expensive models would be possible as well, but the PR from that one might be distasteful enough to hurt Intel.

harry8 9y ago
So like the way apple security updates gimp the performance of your device? These kind of business practises are Apple's biggest contribution to the computing industry. Didn't invent them but made them absolutely "the norm" and everyone, even hardware manufacturers want to emulate Apple's stunning success. I used to hate Microsoft business practises, Apple are far, far worse the only reason they didn't seem it was because they had such a pathetic market share. Only one thing has changed. Think different. Think critically about what Apple are. If Intel copy apple here, can you object to intel doing it but not Apple with a straight face?
- msla 9y ago
  Why do you think I would ever defend Apple in any way, shape, or form?
  - harry8 9y ago
    I don't. The comment above is much more general but definitely provoked by your observation. "You" is used in the sense of the somewhat archaic "one". Language imprecision is a thing. "If Intel copy apple here, can one object to intel doing it but not Apple with a straight face?"

fencepost 9y ago

> When the next massive security bug is found (which is inevitable with all code, open source or closed) you are left essentially with 10k unusable laptops. While this is less useful for devices going outside the network (e.g. the laptops you mention), I suspect that the big enterprise response is going to have to be smarter networks. I can easily picture high end fully managed switches becoming more like firewalls, possibly even to the stage of deep packet inspection for recognized patterns. Not having worked with this, does the ME get its own IP or piggyback looking for particular patterns in packets? And how feasible is it to detect by testing for missing packets (or spurious ones if they're received and passed through?)

hypervis0r 9y ago

That security bug you're talking about can be patched the same way it's exploited. No source code doesn't mean "all is lost". Instead of writing a payload that steals your private keys you just write one that patches out the vulnerability.