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

MINIX: ​Intel's hidden in-chip operating system

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 113 posts

Re: MINIX: ​Intel's hidden in-chip operating system

#71

Post by ramshorns »

mschuster91 wrote: post #51
deno wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For desktop your options are: — FX 8350 (Piledriver) from AMD with no PSP: very cheap, no flashing necessary, but not the best performance. Single core performance much worse than even Pentium G4620[1]. — Some Intel processors and a Raspberry Pi: much better performance but you have to ME_Clean the firmware, hence the Pi. — POWER9 processor for amazing performance and completely open & free firmware all around: the C…

> — Some Intel processors and a Raspberry Pi: much better performance but you have to ME_Clean the firmware, hence the Pi. The Pi also has a binary blob requirement and a Trustzone implementation (which is however open to tinkering).

BeagleBone Black might be another option for flashing the firmware.

Re: MINIX: ​Intel's hidden in-chip operating system

#73

Post by simias »

nfoz wrote: post #8
benevol wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The open-source approach is our own chance to purge corruption in the technology layer. We may not yet have implemented the idea perfectly, but keep in mind the following: With every new player (government, company, user) joining the open-source approach, we get additional eyes on the code/hardware. Imagine all world governments using only open-source code/hardware: Given the current budgets at play, we would have 10…

Let's suppose that hardware is open-source. How do I know that my instance of the hardware is faithful to the spec? That my vendor didn't modify the hardware? Let's suppose that I have a 3D printer sophisticated enough to print open-source circuitboards. How do I trust my 3d printer? I think there's a hardware "trusting trust" problem; I can't imagine how your optimism could ever be realized. I hope I'm missing somet…

You're not missing anything, it's just that with each added "hop" it becomes harder to implement a backdoor and have it undetected.

Your futuristic 3D printer could be backdoored to recognize certain patterns and modify them sneakily but that would be pretty sophisticated and somebody validating thoroughly the output could detect the unexpected divergence. Designing a generic backdoor that would work on any CPU design without being obvious sounds very tricky indeed.

It would also be very difficult to hide the code generating the backdoor if the software of the printer is open source itself. Then you'd have to insert inconspicuous code in the printer's driver which would have the very complex task of messing with the model to insert a backdoor in an arbitrary user-controlled design.

Re: MINIX: ​Intel's hidden in-chip operating system

#74

Post by mosselman »

deno wrote: post #17
mosselman wrote: post #5

So if switching to AMD is NOT the solution, what is? ARM? For your portable needs there is: https://puri.sm/posts/purism-librem-laptops-completely-disab...

For desktop your options are: — FX 8350 (Piledriver) from AMD with no PSP: very cheap, no flashing necessary, but not the best performance. Single core performance much worse than even Pentium G4620[1]. — Some Intel processors and a Raspberry Pi: much better performance but you have to ME_Clean the firmware, hence the Pi. — POWER9 processor for amazing performance and completely open & free firmware all around: the C…

Thanks for the options you mentioned!

Are there tutorials do do this?: Some Intel processors and a Raspberry Pi: much better performance but you have to ME_Clean the firmware, hence the Pi.

Re: MINIX: ​Intel's hidden in-chip operating system

#75

Post by deno »

mosselman wrote: post #74
deno wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For desktop your options are: — FX 8350 (Piledriver) from AMD with no PSP: very cheap, no flashing necessary, but not the best performance. Single core performance much worse than even Pentium G4620[1]. — Some Intel processors and a Raspberry Pi: much better performance but you have to ME_Clean the firmware, hence the Pi. — POWER9 processor for amazing performance and completely open & free firmware all around: the C…

Thanks for the options you mentioned! Are there tutorials do do this?: Some Intel processors and a Raspberry Pi: much better performance but you have to ME_Clean the firmware, hence the Pi.

https://github.com/corna/me_cleaner/wiki/How-to-apply-me_cle...

Re: MINIX: ​Intel's hidden in-chip operating system

#76

Post by jabl »

tsujamin wrote: post #19

" What Minnich would like to see happen is for Intel to dump its MINIX code and use an open-source Linux-based firmware. This would be much more secure. The current software is only secured by "security by obscurity". Changing to Linux would also enable servers to boot much faster. According to Minnich, booting an Open Compute Project (OCP) Server takes eight minutes thanks to MINIX's primitive drivers. With Linux it…

Perhaps's it's unclear from reading the zdnet article, but anyhow, the idea is not to replace Minix in the ME, but rather get rid of, or at least disable, the ME as much as possible, then replace the upper levels of the UEFI stack + the bootloader with a minimal Linux + u-root userspace.

When the final distro kernel is booted by the firmware one, it replaces it. The firmware Linux kernel is thus NOT left running anywhere in the background doing insidious things.

Re: MINIX: ​Intel's hidden in-chip operating system

#77

Post by turblety »

porfirium wrote: post #70
turblety wrote: post #40

While the backdoor and surveillance arguments are good, and the chips are very likely backdoored (if not deliberately then by undetected bugs) there are other issues with this closed source firmware. Let's say another bug [1] is found that lets anyone remotely control your computer, but Intel becomes bankrupt, or just doesn't see it as a big enough threat to roll out a firmware update. You then essentially have a com…

Is there no way to flash the ME without expensive tools (i.e. software-side)? If Intel goes bankrupt they might just release the keys needed to disable/update the ME.

Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be how the computer industry works. Think of all the game, software, hardware companies that don't exist any more. How many of them have released their source code, hardware specifications or given any help for previous customers. Generally the companies got "more important" things to worry about if they're going bankrupt.

Sorry to answer your question, yes it's actually quite easy to flash the firmware. You don't actually need any hardware for it (unless you brick your device somehow). The only issue (as you stated) is it must be signed by Intel to work.

Re: MINIX: ​Intel's hidden in-chip operating system

#79

Post by jabl »

majewsky wrote: post #49
CamelCaseName wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it hard to believe that such a scenario could play out in reality. Surely some government would step forward and compel or even fund a bankrupt Intel to fix such a disaster. But perhaps I am wet behind the ears, have there been any similar cases on a similar scale in the past?

The government will compel Intel to fix a government backdoor? Sounds unlikely.

Adding insult to injury, Intel has something called "High Assurance Platform" (HAP) which allows to disable the ME. Available only to three-letter agencies, of course; what would the world come to if us plebs were allowed to do anything like that?

Re: MINIX: ​Intel's hidden in-chip operating system

#80

Post by jabl »

rkachowski wrote: post #33

It would be interesting to know the HFT attitude on this. How many nanoseconds can you shave off of your trades with ME removed? It seems like throws a spanner in the face of the unikernel / kernel bypass approach of getting closer to the metal, when your CPU can be directly running a web server(!) without your control.

Like mentioned in another comment, the ME runs on a separate CPU.

What might be of concern to real-time workloads are SMM interrupts, which AFAIU run on the main CPU and trap into the firmware. The NERF project might help here too, in that they are looking to either disable SMM or direct them to the Linux kernel.

Post reply on HN