6 ms·
Intel Hardware allows activation of test or debug logic at runtime
- sjburt 5y ago> Intel recommends that users of affected Intel® Processors update to the latest version provided by the system manufacturer that addresses these issues. The latest version of what? microcode? BIOS?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- 3np 5y agoSounds like the processor/SoC itself?
- userbinator 5y ago"may allow escalation of privilege" - from being a mere consumer to an actual owner? All advantages as far as I can see, but of course to the authoritarian corporatocracy it's a vulnerability... I really miss the days when Intel basically released all the documentation you needed to build a computer around their CPUs. The Pentium was when they started being secretive.
- geofft 5y agoYou're not an "actual owner" if non-ring-0 code you run on your processor can gain ring 0. I agree that there is value in having control over your devices. But control, by its nature, must be limited. If everyone controls your device, nobody does, certainly not you.
- userbinator 5y agoThis seems to be about physical access, not ring-3.
- weare138 5y agoBut it's proprietary security through obscurity which is why this keeps happening.
- SavantIdiot 5y agoUh oh, looks like someone left the DF* (DF-star, a.k.a. design for X) features accessible and not fused-off. The links on the intel page don't show any details, nor does googling the CVE.
- vbitz 5y agoOne of the researchers (@_markel___) put out a tweet with more information > After a year of the coordinated disclosure process, we (+ @h0t_max and @_Dmit ) can finally share: we found a reliable, not damaging way to extract the security fuses (Chipset + EPID root keys) from the Intel platforms. https://twitter.com/_markel___/status/1458147735270481926 https://twitter.com/_markel___/status/1458147735270481926
- userbinator 5y agocoordinated disclosure I wonder if these people really think they are heroes for effectively helping Intel further its user-hostile actions.
- walterbell 5y agoIs there any team that has done more public work on ME transparency than Positive Technologies? Unlike others that withhold all information for embargoed announcements, they continually publish updates on their research.
- throwawaylinux 5y agoThese kind of disclosures are the accepted practice in this security space. People and organizations more-or-less help each other out, help users, and play by the rules. There are some who disagree the process is good, works well, or actually achieves its goals. However most (not all) go along with it and don't moralize about corporate strategy or try to hold their vulnerability discoveries over a company as some kind of activism. I think it's pretty safe to say they don't think they are heroes for working with the vendor, they are probably quite rightly proud of their discovery and work though. You comment seems unnecessarily hostile toward them.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mook 5y agoLooks like (according to Intel) it's only the lower end Pentium / Celeron / Atom stuff; it wouldn't be useful for the kinds of chips people are most interested in circumventing ME for, though perhaps there are things that are useful to learn… Also mildly interesting, Dmitry Sklyarov was credited… appears to be the same one from Elcomsoft that got arrested at one point because Adobe complained (and DMCA).
- tyingq 5y agoAlso seems to require physical access: "may allow an unauthenticated user to potentially enable escalation of privilege via physical access" I'm sure there's cases where that's still an issue, but for me, if they have their hands on it it's probably game over via some other route.
- zsmi 5y agoThe CVE is reserved at this time so it's hard to be sure. http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-0146 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2021-0146 They're not impenetrable per se, but iPhone is pretty secure, even with physical access.
- ChuckNorris89 5y ago>They're not impenetrable per se, but iPhone is pretty secure, even with physical access. Citation seriously needed for this bold statement. Apple is not known for timely patches for their vulnerabilities, so no, you don't even need physical access to compromise iPhones, RCE vulns not acknowledged by Apple will do just fine. Just ask shady Israeli/Saudi security companies. Also, nothing is ever impenetrable. In cybersecurity, if your opponent has physical access to your device then it's considered game over and you have to wipe or even throw it away. That's why burner devices are heavily used. Plus, what do iPhones have to do with the Intel chips here anyway?
- baybal2 5y ago> They're not impenetrable per se, but iPhone is pretty secure, even with physical access. Ironically, given lots of early Iphone jailbreaks were due to Apple finding out that CPUs have JTAG ports too late.
- rbanffy 5y agoThe Atom C3000 family is really cursed, it seems.
- marcodiego 5y agoDoes this help circumvent/disable IME?
- maffle 5y agoJust noticed mostly all laptops got a bios update today, including Dell and HP. https://support.hp.com/us-en/document/ish_5031100-5031212-16/hpsbhf03756 https://support.hp.com/us-en/document/ish_5031100-5031212-16... Whats going on? These arent to Atom CPUs alone it seems.