5 ms·

> Why is the T2 panic any worse than a normal panic? It's a bug, they happen. They do happen. They shouldn't. No matter what subsystem causes the kernel panic

by jhdsrt 8y ago

> Why is the T2 panic any worse than a normal panic? It's a bug, they happen. They do happen. They shouldn't. No matter what subsystem causes the kernel panic I don't see why you would think they are acceptable. However, a problem with T2 is worse than other subsystems because... > And before someone says that they're only needed for the Touch Bar, a) they chose to buy the Touch Bar version, and b) T2 and future chips will handle much more. Exactly. T2 is supposed to work as a secure enclave, for instance (see https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208862 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208862). Any bug (especially one causing a kernel crash) related to the T2 chip is potentially a privilege escalation bug, with the potential to enable direct (after decryption) disk access outside of os access control, or the possibility to work around secure boot and boot non-signed kernels, or other problems. The T2 chip is becoming a critical part of the security infrastructure for macs/mac os and any bug related to it should be taken very seriously.

tedunangst 8y ago
How does one conclude that a kernel panic means the T2 is insecure? The kernel trusts the T2, not the other way around.
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  And you know that how?
  - pertymcpert 8y ago
    Because that's the architecture?
pertymcpert 8y ago
Do Linux kernel panics get a HN front page complaint? It's software. > Exactly. T2 is supposed to work as a secure enclave, for instance (see https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208862 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208862). Any bug (especially one causing a kernel crash) related to the T2 chip is potentially a privilege escalation bug, with the potential to enable direct (after decryption) disk access outside of os access control, or the possibility to work around secure boot and boot non-signed kernels, or other problems. Uh, no it's not that simplistic. I think you have a serious misunderstanding of what T2 and bridgeos actually do. It doesn't affect the security.

by jhdsrt 8y ago

tedunangst 8y ago

How does one conclude that a kernel panic means the T2 is insecure? The kernel trusts the T2, not the other way around.

FireBeyond 8y ago
And you know that how?
- pertymcpert 8y ago
  Because that's the architecture?

pertymcpert 8y ago

Do Linux kernel panics get a HN front page complaint? It's software. > Exactly. T2 is supposed to work as a secure enclave, for instance (see https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208862 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208862). Any bug (especially one causing a kernel crash) related to the T2 chip is potentially a privilege escalation bug, with the potential to enable direct (after decryption) disk access outside of os access control, or the possibility to work around secure boot and boot non-signed kernels, or other problems. Uh, no it's not that simplistic. I think you have a serious misunderstanding of what T2 and bridgeos actually do. It doesn't affect the security.