Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Freedom and security issues on x86 platforms

mail.fsfeurope.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 282 posts

Re: Freedom and security issues on x86 platforms

#31

Post by xenadu02 »

speeder wrote: post #5

I've been looking into this recently. Basically, the things mentioned on the text, made free software bios and firmwares impossible, some of the free software projects that exist now are mostly "binary blobs loaders", having more binary blob than free software code running. There is some good analysis on why even Intel can't fix this if they wanted to, unless they stopped shipping some features entirely, their Intel…

Sounds like rich, fertile ground for the NSA, KGB, and other state agencies. They could be deploying such code right now and I'm not sure we would know it.

Re: Freedom and security issues on x86 platforms

#32

Post by bogomipz »

darpa_escapee wrote: post #8

ARM architectures also suffer from this. You'll be hard pressed to find a board that doesn't require a propriety board support package somewhere in the stack. Ironically, it is usually the bootloader that is/requires a blob or it is the DTB. I remember being in middle school and reading Stallman's articles on the dangers of a TPM-oriented push by manufacturers. As cliche as it is, Stallman was right. The push for pla…

DTB?

Re: Freedom and security issues on x86 platforms

#33

Post by tremon »

ashitlerferad wrote: post #10
darpa_escapee wrote: post #8

ARM architectures also suffer from this. You'll be hard pressed to find a board that doesn't require a propriety board support package somewhere in the stack. Ironically, it is usually the bootloader that is/requires a blob or it is the DTB. I remember being in middle school and reading Stallman's articles on the dangers of a TPM-oriented push by manufacturers. As cliche as it is, Stallman was right. The push for pla…

There are plenty of boards that run using mainline u-boot and mainline Linux, you can often ignore the vendor BSP. You are right about ARM though, TrustZone is another DRM-oriented aspect of ARM-based SoCs.

While TrustZone can implement DRM, it is not a closed management engine. If you control the board, you can load your own OS there (but, conversely, if you cannot load your own OS there, you do not control the board).

There was a talk at FOSDEM this year about using TrustZone to run a small hypervisor: https://fosdem.org/2016/schedule/event/microkernels_genode_u...

Re: Freedom and security issues on x86 platforms

#34

Post by muricula »

DenisM wrote: post #19
speeder wrote: post #5

I've been looking into this recently. Basically, the things mentioned on the text, made free software bios and firmwares impossible, some of the free software projects that exist now are mostly "binary blobs loaders", having more binary blob than free software code running. There is some good analysis on why even Intel can't fix this if they wanted to, unless they stopped shipping some features entirely, their Intel…

Apple will be sitting pretty with their own CPU, heh? At least in the iOS devices, but who knowns what the (near) future brings to the Mac line.

I doubt it. The powerpc to Intel switch was really painful because the desktop platform has the perpetual ball and chain of backward compatability. I doubt Apple would try to beat Intel at their own high performance game anyway.

Re: Freedom and security issues on x86 platforms

#35

Post by tremon »

bogomipz wrote: post #32
darpa_escapee wrote: post #8

ARM architectures also suffer from this. You'll be hard pressed to find a board that doesn't require a propriety board support package somewhere in the stack. Ironically, it is usually the bootloader that is/requires a blob or it is the DTB. I remember being in middle school and reading Stallman's articles on the dangers of a TPM-oriented push by manufacturers. As cliche as it is, Stallman was right. The push for pla…

DTB?

Device tree blob. But FAFAIK that is just a binary decription of the hardware layout, and does not include (driver) code.

Re: Freedom and security issues on x86 platforms

#37

Post by cwyers »

Okay, so we get a pile of FUD (Secure Boot and Intel ME are DRM features now? 'kay), no acknowledgement of the actual security threats that compel Intel, AMD, Microsoft and the OEMs to adopt these measures, and an appeal to dump x86 for ARM (um), MIPS (uhhhhhhh), POWER8 (wat), and RISC-V (how?). What is the point of this, exactly?

Re: Freedom and security issues on x86 platforms

#38

Post by chadzawistowski »

mpnordland wrote: post #21

It's great that these guys pushing POWER8 at least have a workable situation, but at least for me, throwing $3,700 at a motherboard (Alone!) just isn't feasible. I would love to be free of proprietary firmware, but it would seem that's only for people better off than myself.

You have to start with a single step. Costs could go down over time.

Re: Freedom and security issues on x86 platforms

#39

Post by Thoreandan »

I think that, given a large enough group of people willing to make a mass-purchase of CPUs, Intel would be likely to listen to requests for a batch with an open-sourced Management Engine component, or some shim akin to the one RHEL uses to boot UEFI in Secure-Boot mode. (mentioned it on /r/ReverseEngineering a few months back.)

I don't know who to reach out to at Intel on that suggestion though.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ReverseEngineering/comments/3pwxjn/...

Post reply on HN