4 ms·
I know a lot of people hate the idea of AMDs PSB but that's exactly what its made for and it could have prevented the attack.
by YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo 5y ago
I know a lot of people hate the idea of AMDs PSB but that's exactly what its made for and it could have prevented the attack.
- axiolite 5y agoThe problem with AMD's PSB is the one-time eFuse on the CPU. If they just provided some way (perhaps electrically connecting a couple contacts on the chip) to reset the eFuse, it would be fine. Instead it causes CPUs to be locked to the motherboard/vendor the moment they are inserted.
- jevoten 5y agoAnd it could do so while still giving the owner tamper-evident control. Yet that never seems to happen - security is too good of an excuse for expanding vendor control at the expense of consumers.
- my123 5y agoNote that Intel’s implementation is on the PCH/chipset, and as such allowing users to freely swap CPUs.
- fsflover 5y agoPurism Librem 14 laptop gives the control to the user with TPM.
- rosndo 5y ago> Yet that never seems to happen Except with secureboot and TPMs?
- my123 5y agoA TPM allows to detect this tampering if used properly for that use case. (To clarify, Windows with BitLocker bound to TPM and Secure Boot on does _not_ do this, taking a shortcut) UEFI Secure Boot doesn’t have much to do with this, because this is about loading an altered UEFI firmware.
- rosndo 5y agoWe went from > Yet that never seems to happen to > UEFI Secure Boot doesn’t have much to do with this, because this is about loading an altered UEFI firmware I think it’s pretty clear that jevoten was talking in a broader context. What he describes has in fact happened with other comparable security technologies.