4 ms·
I think you make a reasonable point here, but it doesn't change the facts about what reasonable attack surfaces are, made elsewhere. For example, why place a d
by bun_at_work 8y ago
I think you make a reasonable point here, but it doesn't change the facts about what reasonable attack surfaces are, made elsewhere.
For example, why place a detectable piece of hardware onto the MoBo, instead of just installing malicious firmware? The hardware piece is going to be limited in capabilities and much easier to detect. Given the level of access required for this "hack," it makes more sense to just write the bad firmware to do all the tricks. Especially since, as far as I understand, the malicious chip modifies the firmware anyway.
There are far too many reasons to be skeptical of the article, and the parties involved have motives that are very easy to trust.
- qaq 8y agoI agree that would make way more sense in general but who knows maybe Apple is reflashing them with verified image or some other procedure that would make that not a workable approach.
- 394549 8y ago> For example, why place a detectable piece of hardware onto the MoBo, instead of just installing malicious firmware? Because the supply-chain may be verifying the integrity of the firmware? Firmware is "detectable" too. It's detection is probably easier because so much of computing is software focused nowadays. Hardware implants have certain advantages: no one may be looking for them and they're extremely resistant to removal attempts.