13 ms·
“Microsoft Pluton Hardware Security Coming to Our CPUs”: AMD, Intel, Qualcomm
- skohan 6y agoIs Pluton specifically Windows related? Will this affect how easy it is to run Linux on hardware using Pluton?
- wmf 6y agoBooting Linux is really a policy question, not technical.
- skohan 6y agoIs it a policy question without Pluton? I.e. will this allow hardware vendors additional means to prevent me from installing Linux?
- qayxc 6y ago> will this allow hardware vendors additional means to prevent me from installing Linux? No. Pluton serves as an on-chip secure enclave for encryption keys and the like. This is unrelated to installing operating systems.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 6y agoWill the final purchaser of the computer chip, i.e., the consumer, have r/w access to the contents of the enclave? EDIT: s/access/r\/w & to the contents of/
- qayxc 6y agoI don't know. I can't even speculate without knowing what you mean by "access to the enclave". If you mean access as in being able to arbitrarily read and write keys or data to/from it, then no, you won't be able to access it that way. After all that's the whole point - even physical access to the hardware won't enable you to extract information (keys, etc.) from it. This means any data or firmware stored on the chip by Microsoft or any OEM (e.g. firmware encryption keys or device signatures) won't be accessible to consumers. TPMs define interfaces, though that allow programs to access its capabilities, so there are ways to interact with the hardware (and those are documented as well so you can write applications or operating systems that support it). To get an idea what the interface looks like, you can check out the documentation of the Windows API: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/secprov/win32-tpm https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/secprov/win32... There's also a list of some TPM commands available on the same site: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/secprov/addblockedcommand-win32-tpm https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/secprov/addbl...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- otabdeveloper4 6y agoOh silly you, of course not.
- dathinab 6y agoTechnically hardware vendors can already prevent this since years (secure boot without custom keys and only including Microsoft Windows keys).
- smarx007 6y agoI don't think so given how much share Linux has on Azure, it simply would not be a wise move.
- chungus_khan 6y agoIf Qualcomm is implementing it, I'm sure it will on a technical level. Linux is important to AMD and Intel, but Linux-running devices represent nearly all of Qualcomm's non-embedded SOC market. Whether vendors can use it to restrict such things, I don't think anyone can say right now, but I would guess and hope not. The TPM does not.
- wahern 6y agoIf Qualcomm is implementing it then it should be easy enough to break. Qualcomm's secure enclave software for Android has had an absolutely abysmal security track record. Apple gets all the press precisely because it's such an achievement (well, that and Apple is more well known). Qualcomm hacks have come out like every 6 months for nearly a decade, and nobody cares anymore.
- merb 6y agowell apple's enclave is broken aswell. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/10/apples-t2-security-chip-has-an-unfixable-flaw/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/10/apple... well at least it needs physical access.
- wahern 6y agoFWIW, I meant Apple secure enclave hacks get all the attention because they're more of an achievement, at least in terms of published hacks being more rare. I tried to keep track of published Qualcomm breaks--which usually don't require physical access as they involve classic software bugs--several years ago but gave up because they were too numerous yet not as widely publicized. I had plenty of fodder by then, though I try to take mental note of new breaks that [briefly] appear on HN or elsewhere. I was keeping track of hacks for marketing material related to a security startup I was working on. The competition would have principally been smartphone-based authentication apps, both Android and iPhone.
- whereistimbo 6y ago
- neerajsi 6y agoIn the embodiment I've seen, it's a ARM M-class core with some special crypto hardware and certain registers that allow the use of crypto keys without software running on the core ever seeing the key. There's a communication channel to the rest of the system, which is completely OS-agnostic. In Azure Sphere, Windows is nowhere in sight. The device runs a Linux Kernel.
- smarx007 6y agoIs this replacing the Cortex A5 used for the PSB? https://www.servethehome.com/amd-psb-vendor-locks-epyc-cpus-for-enhanced-security-at-a-cost/ https://www.servethehome.com/amd-psb-vendor-locks-epyc-cpus-...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- noch 6y agoDo the kids remember Microsoft's ghastly Palladium, from 2 decades ago? >Known Elements of the Palladium System: > The system purports to stop viruses by preventing the running of malicious programs. The system will store personal data within an encrypted folder. >The system will depend on hardware that has either a digital signature or a tracking number. > The system will filter spam. The system has a personal information sharing agent called "My Man." > The system will incorporate Digital Rights Management technologies for media files of all types (music, documents, e-mail communications). Additionally, the system purports to transmit data within the computer via encrypted paths https://epic.org/privacy/consumer/microsoft/palladium.html https://epic.org/privacy/consumer/microsoft/palladium.html
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- gruez 6y agoIsn't this basically fTPM (basically software TPM implemented in the trusted execution environment of the CPU) that both AMD and Intel already offer?
- warkdarrior 6y agoIt'll be built into the CPU, instead of having a separate chip, and seems to have secret-management functionality for user-specified keys, biometrics, etc.
- gruez 6y ago>It'll be built into the CPU, instead of having a separate chip so are the trusted execution environments used by fTPMs? >seems to have secret-management functionality for user-specified keys AFAIK TPMs already have that functionality. random search: https://github.com/tpm2-software/tpm2-tools/blob/master/man/tpm2_import.1.md https://github.com/tpm2-software/tpm2-tools/blob/master/man/... >biometrics, etc. AFAIK some fingerprint readers already use trusted execution environments to handle authentication, so from a feature point of view there isn't really anything new here.
- canada_dry 6y agoThe huge difference, and most tin-foil-hat worthy, is that all this functionality is extended to reach the cloud. What's frightening is that - by design - the user will have little/no control or even awareness of what data is being sent or received.
- dathinab 6y agoThat's most likely based on attestation. Which means the OS still have full control over what it does send but the "thing" can attest that what the OS sends is valid and not made up.
- floatboth 6y ago> so are the trusted execution environments used by fTPMs? AMD PSP for sure is. I think I might have heard something about Intel ME being on the PCH in some cases??? Anyway seems like the point is to make it a "more hardware" TPM rather than a firmware one – i.e. the key memory would only be accessible from fixed function crypto hardware blocks. Coincidentally, this might mean that the embedded TPM would still work after me_cleaner destroys most of the ME firmware :)
- azalemeth 6y agoA previous HN link is here -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25131431 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25131431 -- which links to MS's original press release -- https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2020/11/17/meet-the-microsoft-pluton-processor-the-security-chip-designed-for-the-future-of-windows-pcs/ https://www.microsoft.com/security/blog/2020/11/17/meet-the-.... That article explicitly states that it was designed originally for the xbox. I worry that going to be a very anti-consumer, anti-free-speech, DRM heavy chip that MS want to popularise as an alternative to the (still hated in some circles) TPM. Why else would they design it for the xbox, of all things? Is it aimed to stop speculative execution attacks on a cloud server, or provide Level 4 DRM to Widevine's as-yet-unannounced competitor?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- gotstad 6y agoHow do you see it being anti-free-speech?
- core-questions 6y agoVirtually every technology that can be used to create a walled garden with moderation can be bent to limit people's ability to speak freely. How long until someone has a device which can go to Netflix, social networking, etc. but doesn't have a web browser on it that can load arbitrary pages, and it's impossible to jailbreak? Since we have no freedom of speech within FAANG properties, that would be a considerable restriction of speech... I do always find it wryly amusing when people who identify as being on the left see that the right are the only people who need defense using free speech laws, and then happily allow private industry to restrict speech since it doesn't impact them. The shoe could just as easily be on the other foot, and may well again be one day - principles matter.
- qayxc 6y ago> principles matter To whom, though? Everybody is praising Apple for their (admittedly quite excellent) M1 hardware and no one seems to take issue with that either. You cannot have truly open hardware as long as (software-) patents and IP exist, simple as that. Companies need to protect their investment, since the days of comparatively simple CPUs are over and a lot of "secret sauce" is actually software and licensed IP blocks. Since patent holders are free to select who their licensee is, they'll always target the ones with the biggest margins (see for example [1]) so mainly consumer products and thus those won't be free (as in speech) anytime soon. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-20/nokia-seeks-to-block-lenovo-sales-in-germany-after-injunction https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-20/nokia-see...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- shmerl 6y ago> What the Pluton project from Microsoft and the agreement between AMD, Intel, and Qualcomm will do is build a TPM-equivalent directly into the silicon of every Windows-based PC of the future. CPUs with security modules controlled by MS? Who will guarantee it won't be abused against non MS systems and users?
- roywiggins 6y agoHow many Qualcomm CPUs run Windows?
- mixedCase 6y agoNot that I think Pluton will be a problem for Linux (as in, one that won't be present on Windows also) but AFAIK Qualcomm and Microsoft had partnered to not only run Windows on ARM, but to run x86 software on ARM Windows.
- wyldfire 6y agoNot many, but it's a growing market. Much of the Windows-on-ARM market is Qualcomm SoCs.
- darzu 6y agoI worked extensively with Pluton when I was employed on Azure Sphere (an IoT platform marketed as highly secure and composed of a linux-based OS, ARM SoC, and cloud service). I might be able to answer questions about this. Here’s a blog by the engineer lead on Azure Sphere that discusses Pluton: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/anatomy-of-a-secured-mcu/ https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/anatomy-of-a-secured-... Disclaimer: I still work at MSFT but in a different org.
- yellowapple 6y agoThe pressing concern for me: what does this mean for non-Windows operating systems running on Pluton-equipped systems? Will there be a possibility for non-Windows software to use Pluton's features?
- darzu 6y agoI can only comment on the technical details I know of, not the business objectives of the parties involved. From a technical standpoint, Azure Sphere's OS was built on Linux. As far as I know, there isn't anything Windows specific to Pluton. Pluton was a separate (heavily-modified) ARM M4 core which we interfaced with from the main A7 core via a secure mailbox channel, which was again OS agnostic.
- rektide 6y agoFrustrating that the announcement was made with so little technical details easily findable. This kind of decision- to use an ARM core- seem pretty questionable. That's how things always were done, but it feels like another UEFI/FAT32 situation, dragging in old encumbering legacy baggage with big IP implications, when there are available other options (RISC-V). It feels like this decision is being made literally one year too soon. Fixing the old, archaic in to place.
- gmueckl 6y agoIf this is intended to be a secure enclave, then it need to be pretty much a black box with a mininal interface to the outside world. Changing what is inside the box should be possible at any time then. On the other hand, why does it even matter that you know the CPU instruction set that's used inside the box when you can't ever have direct access to it?
- intricatedetail 6y agoCall me sceptical, but I hope m$ is not pulling Apple tricks to lock computers to their OS. Is this open source? Will consumer be able to audit it down to the silicon level?
- gotstad 6y agoThey already said it is OS agnostic. MS 2020 is far away from MS 2010. With regards to the auditing need, can you audit a CPU down to the silicon level today?
- intricatedetail 6y agoThey could set a new standard. I think when it comes to security these things should be transparent. You know, documentation can say one thing and implementation another.
- gotstad 6y agoExactly my point. You're asking to set a new standard that even todays CPUs does not adhere to, even though they process equally sensitive data and operations. Seemingly, because you are sceptical of MS. And to your point about documentation vs implementation, it would not be difficult for anyone, to state one thing in the documentation and produce another thing, unless perhaps, you give access to the manufacturing facilities.
- mhh__ 6y agoYou probably could to some degree but ultimately even if you did what ARM does and have a machine readable specification and had a way of verifying it on chip, you could still pull a VW-Thompson hybrid where the chip hijacks that process, i.e. detects when it is under audit. I'm reminded of Christopher Domas' excellent talk/s on finding undocumented X86 instructions, if there are any backdoors in a modern processor they'll probably under some hyper-obscure (register, stack etc.) state even if they did use an undocumented instruction.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
- mtgx 6y ago> chip-to-cloud security I assume this also means cloud-to-chip, which means it might give Microsoft/NSA the ability to tap into it at will "from the cloud"? After all, Windows 10's tracking features were like a longtime wishlist from the FBI/NSA, so I wouldn't be surprised if this is their "...one more thing" in the same vein.
- imbuhuo 6y agoLocking out other OSes isn't a main goal of Pluton (although technically it can), there are just too many issues (hey Infineon, Intel and Qualcomm I am looking at you) with existing dTPM and fTPM implementations.
- hansdieter1337 6y agoI stopped reading and started puking when I read “chip-to-cloud security”
- devilduck 6y agoCool NSA back doors
- xvilka 6y agoI wonder if it will be one of the inferior technologies that were forced by Microsoft even outside of their Windows world. Like it happened with UEFI (that has no multithreading, uses PE as a format, Microsoft C ugly coding convention, bloated), SecureBoot (that was designed to stop anything non-Windows instead of real security), UTF-16 (everyone except them and JavaScript uses UTF-8), and so on. The list is long.
- aidenn0 6y agoYou can't blame MS for UTF-16. They adopted it when it was UCS-2 and unicode only had 64k codepoints. They are stuck on the older technology because they were early adopters.
- slaymaker1907 6y agoYou can't forget Java with UTF-16. I feel like Java is an even bigger culprit since the whole language assumes it and there are no real alternatives.
- pjmlp 6y agoNot only was Java created when there was no real alternative, modern implementations a more efficient representation internally, since Java 9 (we are at 15 now), just keep the outside interface as UTF-16 for backwards compatibility, we don't need a Python 3 experience. https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/254 https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/254
- zinekeller 6y ago> UTF-16 (everyone except them and JavaScript uses UTF-8) It's like blaming America's analogue colour TV implementation (NTSC) when in fact PAL and SECAM haven't been invented yet (and NTSC is partially responsible for PAL even existing).
- whereistimbo 6y agoUEFI originated from EFI which was first developed by Intel for use in Itanium platform. EFI saw widespread use on consumer devices pioneered by Apple on Intel Macs. I don't know how far Microsoft influence on EFI, because even Apple was responsible for widespread use of EFI on consumer devices.
- musicale 6y agoSomehow I thought a Pluton should be a fundamental wealth particle, but apparently it's a thing from geology.
- genghizkhan 6y agoSo wealth ought to be quantised and measured in plutons?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 29athrowaway 6y agoAn unnecessary solution for an inexisting problem. I hope they lose their investment. I also hope all their hordes of fanboys wake up to reality now. Yes, the people that "<3 open source" and "<3 Linux" and gave you VS Code for free, will now own your CPU now and you have nothing to do about it. And then, if they change their mind and don't want you to run Linux, you won't run Linux.
- mas3god 6y agoIsnt ms working with the NSA?
- tumblewit 6y agoAfter reading through @darzu's pluton explanation on the site linked, I realised this actually may give you the impression that it's a security measure, but in reality now Azure can verify each chip (not just the computer anymore) and see if it runs authentic software (ding ding ding - Windows Licensing). The two key pair method mentions that each devices can be verified to be running authentic software by azure (the phone home thing everyone is worried about). While most laptops and computers do not ship with keys anymore and instead the hardware generates some kind of signature that is then verified by windows activation, this feels like an easier method of doing that. I wonder if this also means Microsoft is aggressively going to make more and new hardware (or some Microsoft verified hardware kind of thing to setup standards) to directly compete with Apple Silicon and keep profits healthy by forcing more customers to pay for authentic software.
- TwoBit 6y agoIt's hard for me to get interested in any hardware or software security news with ransomware amok and none of this addressing it.
- dragonelite 6y agoWouldn't be surprised if this will be used to block programs coming from non western nations. Pompeo talked about creating a "Clean network" to keep foreign non allied nations hardware and software out of it.
- fefe23 6y agoThe marketing for this chip is vague and confusing because the chip does absolutely nothing for you. This chip is not here to protect you from compromised or malicious IoT devices, or to protect you from compromised or malicious cloud services. This chip is here to protect the Microsoft cloud from compromised or malicious IoT devices. They would also like you to believe that the chip improves security in the cloud. In actuality it protects software running on your device from ... you. All this attestation stuff is great for DRM! That poses a problem for marketing. They have to let it sound like it does something for you when it actually doesn't. It's no surprise then that the marketing is basically a giant weasel word souffle with some buzzwords sprinkled on top, and a bit of name dropping.
- beagle3 6y agoA while ago (2006? Not sure) I was trying to buy a CD in a Tower Records store in SF, and I found the disk I wanted but it said it was "copy protected". I would have had no problem ripping it with abcde or cdparanoia or something, but refusing to support this, I asked the store employee: "Do you, by any chance, have another copy of this without copy protection?" He looked at me, with complete disbelief, saying "But why wouldn't you want your copy to be protected?" I asked him "Do you know what kind of protection this is?" to which he replied, "yes, it's a copy less likely to break". After this incident, I started asking a lot of people if they are aware of what's special about their "copy protected" disks - and the more technical people knew it was an attempt to restrict copying, but the rest thought it was probably a good thing (it says protection, and its on the label, it must be good, or reasoning as such). It was at that point that I started religiously using RMS style acronyms, like Digital Restriction Management, Copy Restriction, etc. and I recommend everyone does.