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

Petition for AMD to open-source the PSP (backdoor) in their chips

change.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 29 posts

Re: Petition for AMD to open-source the PSP (backdoor) in their chips

#11

Post by ysleepy »

ryanlol wrote: post #8
ysleepy wrote: post #3

I don't get it. This would not increase trust since we can not check if the source actually corresponds to the binary in the processor. It would need to be repeatably build-able with the result matching the signature of the default blob. They could release a signed NO-OP firmware that is so small it would be easy to verify as benign using a disassembler. Potential of more secret code is always there, but being this m…

>It would need to be repeatably build-able with the result matching the signature of the default blob. Huh? You can most certainly verify if an unsigned blob matches a signed blob.

(?) Obviously, but building a bit-by-bit identical compiler output is moderately hard.

Re: Petition for AMD to open-source the PSP (backdoor) in their chips

#12

Post by jagger27 »

chrsw wrote: post #9

A company like AMD isn't going to be concerned with customer privacy and security unless it affects their bottom line. If the market was hostile to closed drivers and processor firmware no one would bother selling these types of systems because it wouldn't make sense financially. The consumers have spoken: they're OK with trusting computer manufactures, software vendors, telecommunications carriers and governments. T…

The customers were given no choice. Either upgrade to new hardware with closed blobs or fall behind your competitors.

AMD is in the unique position of having price competitive hardware (per core anyway) in a market where they have effectively zero market share. Big players are going to be switching anyway. If there's no technical reason not to open up the boot process then why not tack on the value add? A few million USD in engineer hours and in a few generations the server market might flip back towards the good guys.

I can see a situation where an entity demands having full hardware trust and even if Intel outperforms, the trust is worth it.

Even if AMD doesn't, and I wouldn't hold my breath, we'll likely see a smaller market emerge for open chips by way of RISC-V and the like.

Re: Petition for AMD to open-source the PSP (backdoor) in their chips

#13

Post by bubblethink »

moppl wrote: post #4

Releasing the PSP source code would AFAIK not change a thing. While it might be an interesting read, the PSP (i.e. AMD) would still remain in control of the platform. The PSP does NOT rely on code obfuscation. It is a much deeper architectural problem with he PSP, than the fact that it holds a binary blob. The designer of the Intel Management Engine (the mother of the PSP) Xiaoyu Ruan wrote in his book "Platform Embe…

>As long as there is a PSP on the system it cannot be fully controlled by the user, even if it's source code should be known.

Why can't you have self-signed PSP/ME firmware ? Why is this not similar to the way android handles bootloaders ? i.e., You either have OEM's keys in the chain, or you have your own. If your employer owns the machine, they do whatever they want. If you own the machine, you do whatever you want.

Re: Petition for AMD to open-source the PSP (backdoor) in their chips

#14

Post by hdhzy »

moppl wrote: post #4

Releasing the PSP source code would AFAIK not change a thing. While it might be an interesting read, the PSP (i.e. AMD) would still remain in control of the platform. The PSP does NOT rely on code obfuscation. It is a much deeper architectural problem with he PSP, than the fact that it holds a binary blob. The designer of the Intel Management Engine (the mother of the PSP) Xiaoyu Ruan wrote in his book "Platform Embe…

Wow, thanks for this excellent resource and links!

Re: Petition for AMD to open-source the PSP (backdoor) in their chips

#15

Post by tgragnato »

chrsw wrote: post #9

A company like AMD isn't going to be concerned with customer privacy and security unless it affects their bottom line. If the market was hostile to closed drivers and processor firmware no one would bother selling these types of systems because it wouldn't make sense financially. The consumers have spoken: they're OK with trusting computer manufactures, software vendors, telecommunications carriers and governments. T…

It affects their bottom line: in the past I chose AMD over Intel for a number of purchases due to exactly this reason.

Now I'm stuck to Bobcat and this would give me an opportunity to refresh my hardware.

I'm not exactly a datacenter, but given the PC market crisis, is AMD able to be so picky?

Is it legitimate to complain about the decline in sales and continue to carry out such practices?

I'd be curious to see some statistics about how many customers are in this situation.

Re: Petition for AMD to open-source the PSP (backdoor) in their chips

#16

Post by ryanlol »

ysleepy wrote: post #11
ryanlol wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It would need to be repeatably build-able with the result matching the signature of the default blob. Huh? You can most certainly verify if an unsigned blob matches a signed blob.

(?) Obviously, but building a bit-by-bit identical compiler output is moderately hard.

I must've misunderstood you then.

Anyway, surely "This would not increase trust" is a bit of an overly strong statement. Even if AMD didn't release reproducible build instructions, having the source code would still make it significantly easier to detect AMD shipping different (compiled) code.

But yeah, open sourcing the PSP without reproducible builds would be a little silly.

Re: Petition for AMD to open-source the PSP (backdoor) in their chips

#18

Post by analognoise »

bubblethink wrote: post #13
moppl wrote: post #4

Releasing the PSP source code would AFAIK not change a thing. While it might be an interesting read, the PSP (i.e. AMD) would still remain in control of the platform. The PSP does NOT rely on code obfuscation. It is a much deeper architectural problem with he PSP, than the fact that it holds a binary blob. The designer of the Intel Management Engine (the mother of the PSP) Xiaoyu Ruan wrote in his book "Platform Embe…

>As long as there is a PSP on the system it cannot be fully controlled by the user, even if it's source code should be known. Why can't you have self-signed PSP/ME firmware ? Why is this not similar to the way android handles bootloaders ? i.e., You either have OEM's keys in the chain, or you have your own. If your employer owns the machine, they do whatever they want. If you own the machine, you do whatever you want…

It gives you the illusion of doing whatever you want, but it is still a system with complete and total access that you can't view.

Re: Petition for AMD to open-source the PSP (backdoor) in their chips

#19

Post by bubblethink »

analognoise wrote: post #18
bubblethink wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As long as there is a PSP on the system it cannot be fully controlled by the user, even if it's source code should be known. Why can't you have self-signed PSP/ME firmware ? Why is this not similar to the way android handles bootloaders ? i.e., You either have OEM's keys in the chain, or you have your own. If your employer owns the machine, they do whatever they want. If you own the machine, you do whatever you want…

It gives you the illusion of doing whatever you want, but it is still a system with complete and total access that you can't view.

Why is it an illusion if you have the source ? You get the source, build it, sign it, and flash it. You can't verify that CPU will only accept your signed firmware and not something else under special circumstances, but you can't verify those sort of cases in hardware anyway. The CPU is a black box at the end of the day.

Edit: Disabling becomes a special case of flashing in this case. Actual hardware disabling will likely never happen because of all the people who use the functionality. The best you can hope for is flashing whatever you want (including nops)

Post reply on HN