4 ms·

> Makes you wonder if the NSA knew about it all along :) Former head of TAO Rob Joyce said "NSA did not know about the flaw, has not exploited it and certainly

> Makes you wonder if the NSA knew about it all along :) Former head of TAO Rob Joyce said "NSA did not know about the flaw, has not exploited it and certainly the U.S. government would never put a major company like Intel in a position of risk like this to try to hold open a vulnerability." [1] Who knows if that's true or not, though. Certainly the U.S. government has done exactly that many times in the past (like with heartbleed). [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/huge-security-flaws-revealed--and-tech-companies-can-barely-keep-up/2018/01/05/82ccbe18-f24e-11e7-b3bf-ab90a706e175_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/huge-secu...

SheinhardtWigCo 9y ago
It's odd to publicly state that they didn't know about it, because now if they don't do the same after the next big flaw comes out, the implication will be that they indeed knew and were quietly exploiting it. I thought that was why they generally don't comment on these things. The less-charitable assumption is that they'll make this claim every time regardless of whether it's true. The claim that "the U.S. government would never put a major company like Intel in a position of risk" is obviously bullshit. TAO's job necessarily involves exposing companies both in the US and overseas to that kind of risk on a daily basis.
- dirtbox 9y ago
  It's the type of announcement that makes me wonder if they had the chip makers incorporate it specifically for them to exploit.
  - mehrdadn 9y ago
    > It's the type of announcement that makes me wonder if they had the chip makers incorporate it specifically for them to exploit. ...sorry, what? It makes you wonder if the NSA had chip makers incorporate speculative execution and caching because... timing attacks?
    - dirtbox 9y ago
      No. It's just that it's highly suspicious that anyone is making any type of mention of it at all.
- arrestedDevelpr 9y ago
  Implications? Who cares what the peanut gallery thinks?
la6470 9y ago
For this demo, you either need the direct physical map offset (e.g. from demo #2) or you have to disable KASLR by specifying nokaslr in your kernel command line." - who disabled kaslr knowingly? I have never seen anyone dothis in 23 years of sysadmin experience.
rdtsc 9y ago
That is an odd one. Why say that instead of of the usual, "we can't comment on that". > U.S. government would never put a major company like Intel in a position of risk like this to try to hold open a vulnerability." [1] They subverted the Dual_EC_DRBG standardization process. Had they not been caught and the algorithm ended up on more devices they would be hurting not just major companies but whole industries. Also for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullrun_(decryption_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullrun_(decryption_program)
arkh 9y ago
> the U.S. government would never put a major company like Intel in a position of risk like this to try to hold open a vulnerability The US government sure. The NSA? They sure would as this statement shows.
- amdavidson 9y ago
  Are you arguing that the NSA does not fall under the umbrella of the "US Government"?
mpweiher 9y ago
<tinfoil> Note that it talks about "the flaw", whereas Intel claims it isn't a "flaw". So could be another instance of overly specific denial. "We didn't exploit this flaw, because it isn't a flaw. We exploited the processor operating as designed". </tinfoil>

SheinhardtWigCo 9y ago

It's odd to publicly state that they didn't know about it, because now if they don't do the same after the next big flaw comes out, the implication will be that they indeed knew and were quietly exploiting it. I thought that was why they generally don't comment on these things. The less-charitable assumption is that they'll make this claim every time regardless of whether it's true. The claim that "the U.S. government would never put a major company like Intel in a position of risk" is obviously bullshit. TAO's job necessarily involves exposing companies both in the US and overseas to that kind of risk on a daily basis.

dirtbox 9y ago
It's the type of announcement that makes me wonder if they had the chip makers incorporate it specifically for them to exploit.
- mehrdadn 9y ago
  > It's the type of announcement that makes me wonder if they had the chip makers incorporate it specifically for them to exploit. ...sorry, what? It makes you wonder if the NSA had chip makers incorporate speculative execution and caching because... timing attacks?
  - dirtbox 9y ago
    No. It's just that it's highly suspicious that anyone is making any type of mention of it at all.
arrestedDevelpr 9y ago
Implications? Who cares what the peanut gallery thinks?

la6470 9y ago

For this demo, you either need the direct physical map offset (e.g. from demo #2) or you have to disable KASLR by specifying nokaslr in your kernel command line." - who disabled kaslr knowingly? I have never seen anyone dothis in 23 years of sysadmin experience.

rdtsc 9y ago

That is an odd one. Why say that instead of of the usual, "we can't comment on that". > U.S. government would never put a major company like Intel in a position of risk like this to try to hold open a vulnerability." [1] They subverted the Dual_EC_DRBG standardization process. Had they not been caught and the algorithm ended up on more devices they would be hurting not just major companies but whole industries. Also for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullrun_(decryption_program) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullrun_(decryption_program)

arkh 9y ago

> the U.S. government would never put a major company like Intel in a position of risk like this to try to hold open a vulnerability The US government sure. The NSA? They sure would as this statement shows.

amdavidson 9y ago
Are you arguing that the NSA does not fall under the umbrella of the "US Government"?

mpweiher 9y ago

<tinfoil> Note that it talks about "the flaw", whereas Intel claims it isn't a "flaw". So could be another instance of overly specific denial. "We didn't exploit this flaw, because it isn't a flaw. We exploited the processor operating as designed". </tinfoil>