4 ms·

Purism is a sham. They are openly trying to abuse the RYF process to get a phone with proprietary firmware blobs certified as "RYF", defeating the entire point

Purism is a sham. They are openly trying to abuse the RYF process to get a phone with proprietary firmware blobs certified as "RYF", defeating the entire point of the RYF programme: https://puri.sm/posts/librem5-solving-the-first-fsf-ryf-hurdle/ https://puri.sm/posts/librem5-solving-the-first-fsf-ryf-hurd... They also have a history of selling x86 systems while articulating vague hopes that the blob/owner control situation will improve in the future, despite this being clearly implausible. In one case for example, they claimed they might get Intel to sign a custom ME firmware for them in the future. Anyone who knows anything about the ME knows that Intel would never do this, ever.

pbasista 8y ago
I am not sure if seeking a “secondary processor” exclusion qualifies as "abuse". I agree that their products are not as "pure" as advocated by some enthusiasts. But the company itself openly says so and for me that is important. What I do not like is their absolutely ridiculous pricing of additional equipment. For instance, they ask $499 for a 500GB NVMe storage [1], while it can easily be purchased for less than third the price [2]. When I complained about it, their response was: "we are well aware of the problem and will be addressing it within the next few months". That was 4 months ago. [1] https://puri.sm/shop/librem-13/ https://puri.sm/shop/librem-13/ [2] https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-970-EVO-500GB-MZ-V7E500BW/dp/B07BN4NJ2J https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-970-EVO-500GB-MZ-V7E500BW/dp/...
- hlandau 8y ago
  The secondary processor exception exists for legitimate reasons. If you have some machine with 100% open source boot firmware, Coreboot, etc., that's still worth certifying even if some Ethernet chip turns out to have firmware inside it. What Purism is doing is moving memory init code away from the CPU on which it would normally and most naturally execute (in terms of engineering design decisions) for the express purpose of moving something they can't actually open out of the scope of RYF. And are then brazenly admitting how they are gaming this in the above blogpost. Most people would expect "open source firmware" to mean "open source memory initialisation", because we understand that's something the firmware does. Moving this onto a secondary CPU is literally no better than proprietary firmware. It can't be audited, and if it's able to initialise the memory controller, it can be expected to have full access to the system. They're practically carving out an Intel ME-like boot processor here, with much of the same disadvantages and concerns.
  - ljcn 8y ago
    Isn't it fine as long as the secondary processor hands back once the initialization is done? Before the training the memory is unused, and only the "clean" processor has access to it after training. I can't see the threat.
- DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
  Tangential: I noticed a similar issue with the pricing of SSD drives offered on Dell's Precision Mobile Workstation laptops. Perhaps Dell's SSDs are extra-awesome in some manner that I'm failing to recognize. But otherwise it makes way more sense to just buy your own SSD drives for those laptops, AFAICT.
whamlastxmas 8y ago
I will also never trust Purism after their dishonest claims of having an entirely open laptop and entirely ignoring Intel ME problems for the sake of better marketing.
- ljcn 8y ago
  They've managed to disable the Intel ME in their laptops. https://puri.sm/posts/purism-librem-laptops-completely-disable-intel-management-engine/ https://puri.sm/posts/purism-librem-laptops-completely-disab...
  - hlandau 8y ago
    No they haven't. You can't "completely disable" the ME in modern Intel x86 laptops, it is literally instrumental in the boot process. They can turn on the HAP bit and run me_cleaner, this reduces the amount of code which runs on the ME. This is an attack surface reduction. It is wholly misleading to refer to it as outright disablement of the ME.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > entirely ignoring Intel ME problems That's a big stretch. Purism does a lot of work, openly, to try to disable ME. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=intel+me+site%3Apuri.sm https://duckduckgo.com/?q=intel+me+site%3Apuri.sm
  - whamlastxmas 8y ago
    They ignored it in their marketing. Labeling a laptop as 100% free and open when it wasn't.
confounded 8y ago
> They also have a history of selling x86 systems while articulating vague hopes that the blob/owner control situation will improve in the future, despite this being clearly implausible. It’s not that implausible; the situation has improved considerably since 2014. They’ve managed to reduce the size of the blob on the ME processor considerably, to just that required for boot. That’s a pretty large increase in freedom, and a decrease in attack surface. Even better, by getting those devices on the market, other vendors like System76 have been cajoled to follow suit in disabling the ME. It’s not good enough for RYF certification, but it’s the best that you can buy on a laptop, outside of Librebooted ThinkPads from 2008. I think a lot of people get annoyed by Purism’s lofty marketing and press releases, but they are actually doing great work.

pbasista 8y ago

I am not sure if seeking a “secondary processor” exclusion qualifies as "abuse". I agree that their products are not as "pure" as advocated by some enthusiasts. But the company itself openly says so and for me that is important. What I do not like is their absolutely ridiculous pricing of additional equipment. For instance, they ask $499 for a 500GB NVMe storage [1], while it can easily be purchased for less than third the price [2]. When I complained about it, their response was: "we are well aware of the problem and will be addressing it within the next few months". That was 4 months ago. [1] https://puri.sm/shop/librem-13/ https://puri.sm/shop/librem-13/ [2] https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-970-EVO-500GB-MZ-V7E500BW/dp/B07BN4NJ2J https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-970-EVO-500GB-MZ-V7E500BW/dp/...

hlandau 8y ago
The secondary processor exception exists for legitimate reasons. If you have some machine with 100% open source boot firmware, Coreboot, etc., that's still worth certifying even if some Ethernet chip turns out to have firmware inside it. What Purism is doing is moving memory init code away from the CPU on which it would normally and most naturally execute (in terms of engineering design decisions) for the express purpose of moving something they can't actually open out of the scope of RYF. And are then brazenly admitting how they are gaming this in the above blogpost. Most people would expect "open source firmware" to mean "open source memory initialisation", because we understand that's something the firmware does. Moving this onto a secondary CPU is literally no better than proprietary firmware. It can't be audited, and if it's able to initialise the memory controller, it can be expected to have full access to the system. They're practically carving out an Intel ME-like boot processor here, with much of the same disadvantages and concerns.
- ljcn 8y ago
  Isn't it fine as long as the secondary processor hands back once the initialization is done? Before the training the memory is unused, and only the "clean" processor has access to it after training. I can't see the threat.
DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
Tangential: I noticed a similar issue with the pricing of SSD drives offered on Dell's Precision Mobile Workstation laptops. Perhaps Dell's SSDs are extra-awesome in some manner that I'm failing to recognize. But otherwise it makes way more sense to just buy your own SSD drives for those laptops, AFAICT.

whamlastxmas 8y ago

I will also never trust Purism after their dishonest claims of having an entirely open laptop and entirely ignoring Intel ME problems for the sake of better marketing.

ljcn 8y ago
They've managed to disable the Intel ME in their laptops. https://puri.sm/posts/purism-librem-laptops-completely-disable-intel-management-engine/ https://puri.sm/posts/purism-librem-laptops-completely-disab...
- hlandau 8y ago
  No they haven't. You can't "completely disable" the ME in modern Intel x86 laptops, it is literally instrumental in the boot process. They can turn on the HAP bit and run me_cleaner, this reduces the amount of code which runs on the ME. This is an attack surface reduction. It is wholly misleading to refer to it as outright disablement of the ME.
forapurpose 8y ago
> entirely ignoring Intel ME problems That's a big stretch. Purism does a lot of work, openly, to try to disable ME. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=intel+me+site%3Apuri.sm https://duckduckgo.com/?q=intel+me+site%3Apuri.sm
- whamlastxmas 8y ago
  They ignored it in their marketing. Labeling a laptop as 100% free and open when it wasn't.

confounded 8y ago

> They also have a history of selling x86 systems while articulating vague hopes that the blob/owner control situation will improve in the future, despite this being clearly implausible. It’s not that implausible; the situation has improved considerably since 2014. They’ve managed to reduce the size of the blob on the ME processor considerably, to just that required for boot. That’s a pretty large increase in freedom, and a decrease in attack surface. Even better, by getting those devices on the market, other vendors like System76 have been cajoled to follow suit in disabling the ME. It’s not good enough for RYF certification, but it’s the best that you can buy on a laptop, outside of Librebooted ThinkPads from 2008. I think a lot of people get annoyed by Purism’s lofty marketing and press releases, but they are actually doing great work.