5 ms·
I wonder if it's one of the chips that has a bootloader vulnerability. All of the trustzone stuff was completely broken on their original, and nobody ever imple
by RL_Quine 7y ago
I wonder if it's one of the chips that has a bootloader vulnerability. All of the trustzone stuff was completely broken on their original, and nobody ever implemented working code for it anyway.
The BOM cost is probably pretty high because of the BGA package, the original was like a 8 layer board or something absurd.
Those processors, as you pointed out, are comically slow even compared with the raspberry pi.
- lcarsip 7y agoWe took part of in the original HAB disclosure process for the NXP i.MX series and we carry on testing these parts. Please see https://github.com/f-secure-foundry/advisories https://github.com/f-secure-foundry/advisories Of course all P/Ns used for the Mk II have a patched boot ROM, please see https://github.com/f-secure-foundry/usbarmory/wiki/Secure-boot-(Mk-II)#security-information https://github.com/f-secure-foundry/usbarmory/wiki/Secure-bo.... The original Mk I was 6 layers in the end, the Mk II is also 6 layers. And yes the BOM cost is considerable due to its specifications. The i.MX SoC core we use is comparable to a 1st gen Raspberry PI in speed, but of course slower than newer multi-core ones. However security and form factor, rather than pure speed, is our goal. For the intent and purposes of the board performance is more than adequate. Some benchmarks here: https://github.com/f-secure-foundry/usbarmory/wiki/Benchmarks-(Mk-II) https://github.com/f-secure-foundry/usbarmory/wiki/Benchmark...
- RL_Quine 7y agoI have deep respect for you disclosing issues in a processor you're using in your own product.