3 ms·

Using Talos for a major global deployment of VPN servers is fantasy. Having open source coreboot on those machines and what it allows you do on top (linuxboot

by nickik 7y ago

Using Talos for a major global deployment of VPN servers is fantasy. Having open source coreboot on those machines and what it allows you do on top (linuxboot for example) can massively improve your operational security and its viable for a global VPN network.

justinjlynn 7y ago
Yes, it absolutely can. However, the first part of good opsec is not lying to yourself about its shortfalls. Fantasy is thinking you can have a "fully open source firmware" for x86 systems, it just isn't - unless it's leaving out major parts of system initialisation and monitoring. Of course you can remove bits and pieces from the ME, but you can't guarantee that'll always be the case - Intel may not let you do so in the future when the next major microcode update comes out. That said, if you're going for cost cutting and as such you're willing to compromise on opsec, you won't beat major established VPN services on cost. That said, cost is a balance, but costs change - as a VPN provider, for your users - opsec is forever.
- nickik 7y ago
  You can in theory. In practice buying hardware that is 10x more expensive is not really viable. Mullvad is already fairly specialized mostly for privacy nerds and there are just not enough people who car about the potential security of Intel ME. Improving the state-of-the-art step by step on the platform that dominates the market will lead to more security gain overall then using what is essentially specialized hardware.
  - justinjlynn 7y ago
    You and I could probably debate at length the merits of the trade-offs involved and the effect such trade-offs would have on fulfilling any given threat model. The point I was making is that it's not 10x as expensive now, it's probably 3-4x, and that cost is likely to become lower in the future anyhow. It's not specialised in the sense that it's single purpose - it's niche, so, the implication of "special purpose" in the computing sense, as in limited in functionaly for the purpose of greatly improved performance for specific tasks, doesn't really apply.
yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
Why do you think it is fantasy to use an existing platform that has the desired properties today, but also think it is viable to go build a new platform yourself? (I like this effort, but given their goals it's not obvious to me that it was the simplest solution)

by nickik 7y ago

justinjlynn 7y ago

Yes, it absolutely can. However, the first part of good opsec is not lying to yourself about its shortfalls. Fantasy is thinking you can have a "fully open source firmware" for x86 systems, it just isn't - unless it's leaving out major parts of system initialisation and monitoring. Of course you can remove bits and pieces from the ME, but you can't guarantee that'll always be the case - Intel may not let you do so in the future when the next major microcode update comes out. That said, if you're going for cost cutting and as such you're willing to compromise on opsec, you won't beat major established VPN services on cost. That said, cost is a balance, but costs change - as a VPN provider, for your users - opsec is forever.

nickik 7y ago
You can in theory. In practice buying hardware that is 10x more expensive is not really viable. Mullvad is already fairly specialized mostly for privacy nerds and there are just not enough people who car about the potential security of Intel ME. Improving the state-of-the-art step by step on the platform that dominates the market will lead to more security gain overall then using what is essentially specialized hardware.
- justinjlynn 7y ago
  You and I could probably debate at length the merits of the trade-offs involved and the effect such trade-offs would have on fulfilling any given threat model. The point I was making is that it's not 10x as expensive now, it's probably 3-4x, and that cost is likely to become lower in the future anyhow. It's not specialised in the sense that it's single purpose - it's niche, so, the implication of "special purpose" in the computing sense, as in limited in functionaly for the purpose of greatly improved performance for specific tasks, doesn't really apply.

yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago

Why do you think it is fantasy to use an existing platform that has the desired properties today, but also think it is viable to go build a new platform yourself? (I like this effort, but given their goals it's not obvious to me that it was the simplest solution)