6 ms·

This is all getting rather silly, right? I was the first one to mock Richard Stallman for being too radical, dramatic and paranoid but I can now confirm he wasn

This is all getting rather silly, right? I was the first one to mock Richard Stallman for being too radical, dramatic and paranoid but I can now confirm he wasn't. Every word he said in last 15 or so years is true. This all simply makes all our IT related work just kids playing make-pretend security. I am literally trying to figure out what other processors exist that can be used in everyday BSD/Linux work. Sparc? Some ARM branch? Any suggestions welcome.

ThinkBeat 9y ago
Came here to say the same thing. Richard Stallman was right and I wish we would learn to listen but I doubt that will happen.
sp332 9y ago
This problem was discoverable for the last 20 years. Of all the confidential tech that goes into a CPU, this wasn't it.
- smacktoward 9y ago
  So the question becomes, why didn't anyone discover it?
  - usrusr 9y ago
    Too good to be shared perhaps? I don't like this conspiracy theory way of thinking, but post-Snowden it's difficult to draw a line.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
    Because it's difficult. Sure, it's obvious in hindsight, but it's a flaw in a small part of a very large and complex system.
    - pkaye 9y ago
      What happened to all the theorem proving software that are supposed to absolutely guarantee correctness of code. I guess they are only as accurate as the assumptions input into them?
      - zlynx 9y ago
        In this case the CPU does function exactly as designed. Any correctness prover would agree. It does show the problem of all theorem provers: they are only as good as the specification.
      - SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
        The code conforms to the specification. It's not buggy. The specification does not conform to the user's expectations or documentation. It's flawed. Theorem provers can only prove that the code conforms to the specification, not to the user's expectations or documentation. They can be very helpful, but they aren't magic and can't interpret non-formal specifications.
matthewmacleod 9y ago
What specifically has Stallman said that relates to this particular issue?
- stuaxo 9y ago
  I guess along the lines that closed source "security" is an oxymoron.
  - matthewmacleod 9y ago
    That’s true to some extent, but it’s not like open source software is free from security issues. Open source might make it easier to find and fix issues, but it can’t avoid them entirely.
    - SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
      Open source is necessary but not sufficient for security. Secure systems are a strict subset of open systems.
- binaryapparatus 9y ago
  Apart from usual 'open source' and 'who controls the software' dogma, I find his endless gnawing about libreboot and Intel ME very related to general closed-box-that-we-trust problems. Trouble is now I think he wasn't paranoid enough.
  - jraph 9y ago
    So I sent those quotes to Richard Stallman: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16081602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16081602 (this thread's original message) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16081712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16081712 (the parent) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16081700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16081700 ("Stallman is the hero we don’t deserve") With some encouraging sentences to keep on making the world a better place. He felt honored. He asked me to post this for him. "Now that you recognize these problems are real, how about joining in the work to fix them? See gnu.org/help for a list of many different kinds of work that we need (programming is just one of many), then pick one and help!"
tzahola 9y ago
Stallman is the hero we don’t deserve.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
OldSchoolJohnny 9y ago
A guy living in a cardboard box in an alley rambling on is just as likely to hit upon a semblance of relevance from time to time. Doesn't make them any less of a nutjob or any more worth listening to.
- mindcrime 9y ago
  That's not really relevant though. rms is not "some nutjob living in a cardboard box" and his thoughts have proven to be extremely prescient and insightful over and over again. He's definitely "worth listening to" even if you don't agree with him on every single point.
- B1FF_PSUVM 9y ago
  That was a barrel, actually. Bastard had the nerve to tell Alexander to "stand a little out of my sun." Total nutjob. No respect for wealth and power whatsoever.
- CamperBob2 9y ago
  I agree, in principle, but when the nutjob in question correctly predicts a dozen things in a row with no misses, you have to wonder if you might be missing something important.
dmytroi 9y ago
Being free (or open) source have nothing to do with security: Linux/BSD still have 0day rootkits, yet all source is available, modern JS software have all tracking in the world, yet all source is available (VSCode telemetry). Even RISC-V, being fully open, most likely will be susceptible to spectre attack. Instead of false promises we need to develop better engineering: verification, computational math, etc. And also laws - no free/open license in the world will stop companies from tracking, but fine as big as 4% of total revenue (EU GDPR) will make them oblige.
- worblux 9y ago
  RISC V is certainly not vulnerable to Spectere as all the the real-world chips are in-order execution, meaning post-branch instruction never happen until after the branch is decided. Out of order variants are still in the design stage, so they may come up with a way to isolate or invalidate speculation effects on branch misprediction.
- solarkraft 9y ago
  OSS makes vulnerabilities easier to discover, but if the project isn't well known they may still easily go unnoticed.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- rcoveson 9y ago
  It seems like in the case of Meltdown and Spectre, FOSS may have /everything/ to do with security. FOSS with the addendum that you don't execute arbitrary javascript, anyway. In a world where personal computers only ran code the user could safely trust, these exploits would only be full attack vectors when applied to multi-tenant computing environments. I'm not arguing that FOSS systems are inherently more secure than closed systems, but when it comes to exploits that require arbitrary code execution to be effective, Stallman really was/is right. Between a NoScript browser extension and a system whose source code is entirely available to you, you've basically got Meltdown/Spectre immunity.
  - 9y ago
pkaye 9y ago
To be absolutely safe, you just need a processor that is simple enough not to use any of these performance enhancing techniques (ie out-of-order execution, speculation, branch prediction, caching.) Of course it might be much slower than you are used to but if security is your primary concern it makes sense.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  Only caching use a problem. Indirect branch prediction can be "flattened" at a cost by checking TLB in context switch, presuming the kernel sets it up nicely per process. The other techniques are fine. As usual, secure code needs to be written with timing attacks in mind and they don't change much there.
userbinator 9y ago
Ironically enough, RMS could probably be using the most side-channel-leaking CPU on his computer and it wouldn't matter... because he is the sole user and runs only his carefully-chosen free software on it. His thoughts on cloud computing, however, are very much worth listening to.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  Bugs happen. I wouldn't even beyond emacs to not still have a remotely exploitable security issue. Not to mention Firefox.
  - userbinator 9y ago
    He is quite unusual in his habits, but considering that he is probably a more high-value target than the majority of us, I'd say his approach has served him well. https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html Scroll down to the point titled "I am careful in how I use the Internet."
    - dingo_bat 9y ago
      How is Stallman more high-value than a software developer working in a tech company? I'd say the opposite is true.
  - rcoveson 9y ago
    I don't think that was the point of the parent comment. Obviously Stallman's system is not perfectly secure, but it may well be immune to exploits that require arbitrary code execution like Meltdown and Spectre.
cc439 9y ago
IIRC, first generation Intel Atom CPUs are safe from Spectre due to their nature of being an in-order execution design. Those are the most modern/powerful in-order chips I can think of and now I regret selling the old Dell netbook I had in college.
- mikestew 9y ago
  I still have my old MSI Wind U100 from 2010-ish. I was lately wondering what to do with it. It’s already running Mint, so I guess I’ll make it my main machine. :-)
djsumdog 9y ago
Stallman's argument is a good one against the Intel ME issues, but I don't think it apples to Meltdown. This is a specific side-channel attack in a super complicated system. Even if we had OSS x86/64 processors, this more similar to the protocol issues found in openssl.

ThinkBeat 9y ago

Came here to say the same thing. Richard Stallman was right and I wish we would learn to listen but I doubt that will happen.

sp332 9y ago

This problem was discoverable for the last 20 years. Of all the confidential tech that goes into a CPU, this wasn't it.

smacktoward 9y ago
So the question becomes, why didn't anyone discover it?
- usrusr 9y ago
  Too good to be shared perhaps? I don't like this conspiracy theory way of thinking, but post-Snowden it's difficult to draw a line.
- SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
  Because it's difficult. Sure, it's obvious in hindsight, but it's a flaw in a small part of a very large and complex system.
  - pkaye 9y ago
    What happened to all the theorem proving software that are supposed to absolutely guarantee correctness of code. I guess they are only as accurate as the assumptions input into them?
    - zlynx 9y ago
      In this case the CPU does function exactly as designed. Any correctness prover would agree. It does show the problem of all theorem provers: they are only as good as the specification.
    - SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
      The code conforms to the specification. It's not buggy. The specification does not conform to the user's expectations or documentation. It's flawed. Theorem provers can only prove that the code conforms to the specification, not to the user's expectations or documentation. They can be very helpful, but they aren't magic and can't interpret non-formal specifications.

matthewmacleod 9y ago

What specifically has Stallman said that relates to this particular issue?

stuaxo 9y ago
I guess along the lines that closed source "security" is an oxymoron.
- matthewmacleod 9y ago
  That’s true to some extent, but it’s not like open source software is free from security issues. Open source might make it easier to find and fix issues, but it can’t avoid them entirely.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
    Open source is necessary but not sufficient for security. Secure systems are a strict subset of open systems.
binaryapparatus 9y ago
Apart from usual 'open source' and 'who controls the software' dogma, I find his endless gnawing about libreboot and Intel ME very related to general closed-box-that-we-trust problems. Trouble is now I think he wasn't paranoid enough.
- jraph 9y ago
  So I sent those quotes to Richard Stallman: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16081602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16081602 (this thread's original message) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16081712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16081712 (the parent) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16081700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16081700 ("Stallman is the hero we don’t deserve") With some encouraging sentences to keep on making the world a better place. He felt honored. He asked me to post this for him. "Now that you recognize these problems are real, how about joining in the work to fix them? See gnu.org/help for a list of many different kinds of work that we need (programming is just one of many), then pick one and help!"

tzahola 9y ago

Stallman is the hero we don’t deserve.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

OldSchoolJohnny 9y ago

A guy living in a cardboard box in an alley rambling on is just as likely to hit upon a semblance of relevance from time to time. Doesn't make them any less of a nutjob or any more worth listening to.

mindcrime 9y ago
That's not really relevant though. rms is not "some nutjob living in a cardboard box" and his thoughts have proven to be extremely prescient and insightful over and over again. He's definitely "worth listening to" even if you don't agree with him on every single point.
B1FF_PSUVM 9y ago
That was a barrel, actually. Bastard had the nerve to tell Alexander to "stand a little out of my sun." Total nutjob. No respect for wealth and power whatsoever.
CamperBob2 9y ago
I agree, in principle, but when the nutjob in question correctly predicts a dozen things in a row with no misses, you have to wonder if you might be missing something important.

dmytroi 9y ago

Being free (or open) source have nothing to do with security: Linux/BSD still have 0day rootkits, yet all source is available, modern JS software have all tracking in the world, yet all source is available (VSCode telemetry). Even RISC-V, being fully open, most likely will be susceptible to spectre attack. Instead of false promises we need to develop better engineering: verification, computational math, etc. And also laws - no free/open license in the world will stop companies from tracking, but fine as big as 4% of total revenue (EU GDPR) will make them oblige.

worblux 9y ago
RISC V is certainly not vulnerable to Spectere as all the the real-world chips are in-order execution, meaning post-branch instruction never happen until after the branch is decided. Out of order variants are still in the design stage, so they may come up with a way to isolate or invalidate speculation effects on branch misprediction.
solarkraft 9y ago
OSS makes vulnerabilities easier to discover, but if the project isn't well known they may still easily go unnoticed.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
rcoveson 9y ago
It seems like in the case of Meltdown and Spectre, FOSS may have /everything/ to do with security. FOSS with the addendum that you don't execute arbitrary javascript, anyway. In a world where personal computers only ran code the user could safely trust, these exploits would only be full attack vectors when applied to multi-tenant computing environments. I'm not arguing that FOSS systems are inherently more secure than closed systems, but when it comes to exploits that require arbitrary code execution to be effective, Stallman really was/is right. Between a NoScript browser extension and a system whose source code is entirely available to you, you've basically got Meltdown/Spectre immunity.
- 9y ago

pkaye 9y ago

To be absolutely safe, you just need a processor that is simple enough not to use any of these performance enhancing techniques (ie out-of-order execution, speculation, branch prediction, caching.) Of course it might be much slower than you are used to but if security is your primary concern it makes sense.

AstralStorm 9y ago
Only caching use a problem. Indirect branch prediction can be "flattened" at a cost by checking TLB in context switch, presuming the kernel sets it up nicely per process. The other techniques are fine. As usual, secure code needs to be written with timing attacks in mind and they don't change much there.

userbinator 9y ago

Ironically enough, RMS could probably be using the most side-channel-leaking CPU on his computer and it wouldn't matter... because he is the sole user and runs only his carefully-chosen free software on it. His thoughts on cloud computing, however, are very much worth listening to.

AstralStorm 9y ago
Bugs happen. I wouldn't even beyond emacs to not still have a remotely exploitable security issue. Not to mention Firefox.
- userbinator 9y ago
  He is quite unusual in his habits, but considering that he is probably a more high-value target than the majority of us, I'd say his approach has served him well. https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html Scroll down to the point titled "I am careful in how I use the Internet."
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    How is Stallman more high-value than a software developer working in a tech company? I'd say the opposite is true.
- rcoveson 9y ago
  I don't think that was the point of the parent comment. Obviously Stallman's system is not perfectly secure, but it may well be immune to exploits that require arbitrary code execution like Meltdown and Spectre.

cc439 9y ago

IIRC, first generation Intel Atom CPUs are safe from Spectre due to their nature of being an in-order execution design. Those are the most modern/powerful in-order chips I can think of and now I regret selling the old Dell netbook I had in college.

mikestew 9y ago
I still have my old MSI Wind U100 from 2010-ish. I was lately wondering what to do with it. It’s already running Mint, so I guess I’ll make it my main machine. :-)

djsumdog 9y ago

Stallman's argument is a good one against the Intel ME issues, but I don't think it apples to Meltdown. This is a specific side-channel attack in a super complicated system. Even if we had OSS x86/64 processors, this more similar to the protocol issues found in openssl.