5 ms·

Looks 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

by mook 5y ago

Looks 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 ago
Also 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 ago
  The 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.
  - hungryforcodes 5y ago
    Wow! Every week it seems on HN there are articles about the porous nature of iPhone impenetrability. Everything from zero click attacks in iMessages that have been unpatched since iOS 4 to Wi-Fi bugs that could be exploited for remote code execution without any user interaction at all. The problem that these exist is not even the issue. It's the glaring number and breadth of the exploits that make it likely these are just the tip of the iceberg. Apple has been sleeping at at wheel with regards to security and I can't imagine short of a "Snow Leopard" style crusade to fix security (back then it was performance), that this is going to change anytime soon.
    - MarcoZavala 5y ago
kcb 5y ago
The Atom SoCs in question were widely used in network switches and appliances.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  Atom is not a low-end product. Atom is to Intel’s embedded product line what Xeon is to their server and workstation line. It’s the top brand.
  - gpderetta 5y ago
    > Atom is not a low-end product. Atom is to Intel’s embedded product right, not so much low-end as dead-end :)
    - nicolaslem 5y ago
      The E-cores in Intel 12th gen CPUs are basically Atom cores, so very much not dead.
      - gpderetta 5y ago
        Well, yes, but they are not atom CPUs, so they won't likely be vulnerable to this issue as it is not part of the core. In any case, it is not like I was making some deep point, other than a cheap shot at Intel mobile/embedded effort :).
- nicolaslem 5y ago
  There is also a whole series of Atom processor made for 5G telecom appliances, the kind of thing where security definitely matters. The Atom C3000 series is also widely used in NAS because it supports ECC memory and can be passively cooled while still being performant enough to not be a bottleneck.

by mook 5y ago

tyingq 5y ago

Also 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 ago
The 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.
- hungryforcodes 5y ago
  Wow! Every week it seems on HN there are articles about the porous nature of iPhone impenetrability. Everything from zero click attacks in iMessages that have been unpatched since iOS 4 to Wi-Fi bugs that could be exploited for remote code execution without any user interaction at all. The problem that these exist is not even the issue. It's the glaring number and breadth of the exploits that make it likely these are just the tip of the iceberg. Apple has been sleeping at at wheel with regards to security and I can't imagine short of a "Snow Leopard" style crusade to fix security (back then it was performance), that this is going to change anytime soon.
  - MarcoZavala 5y ago

kcb 5y ago

The Atom SoCs in question were widely used in network switches and appliances.

jeffbee 5y ago
Atom is not a low-end product. Atom is to Intel’s embedded product line what Xeon is to their server and workstation line. It’s the top brand.
- gpderetta 5y ago
  > Atom is not a low-end product. Atom is to Intel’s embedded product right, not so much low-end as dead-end :)
  - nicolaslem 5y ago
    The E-cores in Intel 12th gen CPUs are basically Atom cores, so very much not dead.
    - gpderetta 5y ago
      Well, yes, but they are not atom CPUs, so they won't likely be vulnerable to this issue as it is not part of the core. In any case, it is not like I was making some deep point, other than a cheap shot at Intel mobile/embedded effort :).
nicolaslem 5y ago
There is also a whole series of Atom processor made for 5G telecom appliances, the kind of thing where security definitely matters. The Atom C3000 series is also widely used in NAS because it supports ECC memory and can be passively cooled while still being performant enough to not be a bottleneck.