6 ms·

> This means Microsoft owns my computer. Yes, that's what Operating Systems tend to do. Why are you running an OS from a company you don't trust?

by 323 5y ago

nightski 5y ago
Who said they are running windows? The security processor will be present no matter what OS you use.
- lkxijlewlf 5y ago
  Exactly.
- kllrnohj 5y ago
  That's very different from the security processor doing anything if you're not using Windows, though. If this processor can be disabled in the BIOS, like existing TPMs typically can be, then does this matter? If Microsoft's "hardware backdoor" is only powered on when using Microsoft's OS anyway then what's the problem? If this can't be easily turned off, then yes that's absolutely a problem. But there's no evidence that's the case, and would be a divergence from existing TPMs in that regard.
  - philistine 5y ago
    How could this co-processor, designed by Microsoft, be able to spy on you while you're running Linux, an OS it doesn't understand, and Linux itself is actively trying to keep itself hidden from such a co-processor. I'm disappointed in the HN crowd going into hysterics when the reality is simple; no hardware module can spy on an OS that knows exactly how the module works and can actively deny it any access.
    - m4rtink 5y ago
      Very easily - for example it can just dump any sequences in memory that look like encryption keys and send them to the mothership. This can be initiated through the actual "owners" of this chip or the next malware authors that exploit this undocumented black box that received zero scrutiny by the public security community.
      - kllrnohj 5y ago
        That's not "very easily" - how is it sending them to the mothership? It needs a network connection, and unless it has a wifi stack & WPA keys to connect to things, that's not very likely for it to have. The typical backdoor concern for things like Intel's management engine is via ethernet, which it definitely does have access to and is a lot easier for it to stand up & make a connection. But wifi requires credentials or some way for this security chip to inject additional packets. The former isn't really plausible without OS participation, and the latter would be very detectible if it happened. The owners of the chip can't exactly magic commands directly to the chip, after all. And communication with the outside world is trivially detected unless they go through the extreme cost of giving it its own cell modem or similar.
        npteljes 5y ago
        What you refer to "former", completely bypasses the OS, by having direct access to the ethernet controller. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine The WiFi could connect to a neighboring device supporting this function. Amazon developed Sidewalk[0] for example. Or my country has an ISP that lets you connect from any of the subscriber's wifi, as long as you pass your credentials. The subscribers can turn this off, but it's opt-out. So this is two, actual, already deployed mechanism that solves the "how it's sending to the mothership" problem. And I expect more to come - looking at 5G for example. [0] https://www.theregister.com/2020/11/24/amazon_sidewalk_opt_out/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/11/24/amazon_sidewalk_opt_o...
    - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
      Because Microsoft is not a company that can be trusted; while they limit themselves to their OS it is fine, it is not our business. But once they start to tamper with the hardware the competing OS-es are running on, they can't be trusted. History shows they will use all available measures to take advantage to harm the competition.
    - npteljes 5y ago
      >no hardware module can spy on an OS that knows exactly how the module works and can actively deny it any access. I don't think so. If you skim through the Intel ME wiki article, which is one of such systems, it works almost completely independently from the computer, having separate and privileged access to different hardware, like the ethernet card, and doing whatever it pleases - including working while the computer itself is turned off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine
    - mindslight 5y ago
      It's not "hysterics" - you're misunderstanding the problem. The problem isn't the presence of such functionality on your own computer. As you state, you're free to ignore it [0]. Or even use remote attestation for your own purposes, which could be handy. The problem we're reacting against is that when these chips exist widely enough, it becomes plausible for others to assert that everyone's computing device has one. At that point it's possible for third parties you want to interact with (eg your bank, government, entertainment provider, or even mundane web service) to start insisting that you use such chip's functionality to prove exactly what software you are running, for their "security" [1]. At which point it becomes impossible to run anything besides approved locked-down proprietary environments when interacting with such services. As others have said, look at "SafetyNet" on Android. It's new enough that you can still pick banks that don't insist on dictating your computing environment, but with our moribund markets and monkey-see-monkey-do executives, the trend can only go in one direction. [0] assuming no side channel between it and the network card(s). [1] which they'll Orwellianly brand as "your security"
      - philistine 5y ago
        Have you ever considered the possibility that SafetyNet, for example, exists because banks want to guarantee the transactions are indeed done by the user? It all goes back to the concept of the chain of trust. If a company can vouch for the code all the way from them to where it is running, that is an incredible improvement to security. Apple does it for its encryption and startup sequence, having delegated macOS to a read-only, signed volume on your disk that they can cryptographically guarantee has not been modified one bit. That, to me, is a great improvement in the security of our lives, and our banking.
        mindslight 5y ago
        Yes of course, that is their obvious goal. Desiring ever more power to assure safety is one of the common motivations of authoritarianism in general. It's incompatible with a free society where power is distributed throughout many independent parties.
        5y ago

> This means Microsoft owns my computer. Yes, that's what Operating Systems tend to do. Why are you running an OS from a company you don't trust?

by 323 5y ago

> This means Microsoft owns my computer. Yes, that's what Operating Systems tend to do. Why are you running an OS from a company you don't trust?

nightski 5y ago

Who said they are running windows? The security processor will be present no matter what OS you use.

lkxijlewlf 5y ago
Exactly.
kllrnohj 5y ago
That's very different from the security processor doing anything if you're not using Windows, though. If this processor can be disabled in the BIOS, like existing TPMs typically can be, then does this matter? If Microsoft's "hardware backdoor" is only powered on when using Microsoft's OS anyway then what's the problem? If this can't be easily turned off, then yes that's absolutely a problem. But there's no evidence that's the case, and would be a divergence from existing TPMs in that regard.
- philistine 5y ago
  How could this co-processor, designed by Microsoft, be able to spy on you while you're running Linux, an OS it doesn't understand, and Linux itself is actively trying to keep itself hidden from such a co-processor. I'm disappointed in the HN crowd going into hysterics when the reality is simple; no hardware module can spy on an OS that knows exactly how the module works and can actively deny it any access.
  - m4rtink 5y ago
    Very easily - for example it can just dump any sequences in memory that look like encryption keys and send them to the mothership. This can be initiated through the actual "owners" of this chip or the next malware authors that exploit this undocumented black box that received zero scrutiny by the public security community.
    - kllrnohj 5y ago
      That's not "very easily" - how is it sending them to the mothership? It needs a network connection, and unless it has a wifi stack & WPA keys to connect to things, that's not very likely for it to have. The typical backdoor concern for things like Intel's management engine is via ethernet, which it definitely does have access to and is a lot easier for it to stand up & make a connection. But wifi requires credentials or some way for this security chip to inject additional packets. The former isn't really plausible without OS participation, and the latter would be very detectible if it happened. The owners of the chip can't exactly magic commands directly to the chip, after all. And communication with the outside world is trivially detected unless they go through the extreme cost of giving it its own cell modem or similar.
      - npteljes 5y ago
        What you refer to "former", completely bypasses the OS, by having direct access to the ethernet controller. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine The WiFi could connect to a neighboring device supporting this function. Amazon developed Sidewalk[0] for example. Or my country has an ISP that lets you connect from any of the subscriber's wifi, as long as you pass your credentials. The subscribers can turn this off, but it's opt-out. So this is two, actual, already deployed mechanism that solves the "how it's sending to the mothership" problem. And I expect more to come - looking at 5G for example. [0] https://www.theregister.com/2020/11/24/amazon_sidewalk_opt_out/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/11/24/amazon_sidewalk_opt_o...
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    Because Microsoft is not a company that can be trusted; while they limit themselves to their OS it is fine, it is not our business. But once they start to tamper with the hardware the competing OS-es are running on, they can't be trusted. History shows they will use all available measures to take advantage to harm the competition.
  - npteljes 5y ago
    >no hardware module can spy on an OS that knows exactly how the module works and can actively deny it any access. I don't think so. If you skim through the Intel ME wiki article, which is one of such systems, it works almost completely independently from the computer, having separate and privileged access to different hardware, like the ethernet card, and doing whatever it pleases - including working while the computer itself is turned off. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine
  - mindslight 5y ago
    It's not "hysterics" - you're misunderstanding the problem. The problem isn't the presence of such functionality on your own computer. As you state, you're free to ignore it [0]. Or even use remote attestation for your own purposes, which could be handy. The problem we're reacting against is that when these chips exist widely enough, it becomes plausible for others to assert that everyone's computing device has one. At that point it's possible for third parties you want to interact with (eg your bank, government, entertainment provider, or even mundane web service) to start insisting that you use such chip's functionality to prove exactly what software you are running, for their "security" [1]. At which point it becomes impossible to run anything besides approved locked-down proprietary environments when interacting with such services. As others have said, look at "SafetyNet" on Android. It's new enough that you can still pick banks that don't insist on dictating your computing environment, but with our moribund markets and monkey-see-monkey-do executives, the trend can only go in one direction. [0] assuming no side channel between it and the network card(s). [1] which they'll Orwellianly brand as "your security"
    - philistine 5y ago
      Have you ever considered the possibility that SafetyNet, for example, exists because banks want to guarantee the transactions are indeed done by the user? It all goes back to the concept of the chain of trust. If a company can vouch for the code all the way from them to where it is running, that is an incredible improvement to security. Apple does it for its encryption and startup sequence, having delegated macOS to a read-only, signed volume on your disk that they can cryptographically guarantee has not been modified one bit. That, to me, is a great improvement in the security of our lives, and our banking.
      - mindslight 5y ago
        Yes of course, that is their obvious goal. Desiring ever more power to assure safety is one of the common motivations of authoritarianism in general. It's incompatible with a free society where power is distributed throughout many independent parties.
        5y ago