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

Reversing the AMD Secure Processor (PSP) – Part 2: Cryptographic Co-Processor

dayzerosec.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 31 posts

Re: Reversing the AMD Secure Processor (PSP) – Part 2: Cryptographic Co-Processor

#11

Post by jrpelkonen »

compsciphd wrote: post #8
transpute wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to system launch integrity, they are likely used by streaming video DRM, e.g. Netflix.

SGX was used by video DRM on intel platforms. As SGX no longer exists in modern intel processors, its not really doable anymore. netflix drm and the like are probably done on gpu, not on cpu (but I could be wrong) It's actually impossible to have a "legal"/commercial 4k bluray setup today on modern PCs/CPUs, as they will only license it to players that can use SGX and as noted SGX no longer exists. (of course this do…

I believe Xeons still include SGX even today. You’re correct about the consumer CPUs not supporting it anymore.

Re: Reversing the AMD Secure Processor (PSP) – Part 2: Cryptographic Co-Processor

#12

Post by iforgotpassword »

mrweasel wrote: post #7
transpute wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to system launch integrity, they are likely used by streaming video DRM, e.g. Netflix.

Ah, I always understood them to be mostly for remote management.

That's AMT/vPro in Intels case. Gives you things like vnc access from the moment the machine turns on.

Re: Reversing the AMD Secure Processor (PSP) – Part 2: Cryptographic Co-Processor

#13

Post by shrubble »

dtx1 wrote: post #2

I never understood why AMD is not at least making the source of these available. I would actually really like a secure cryptographic processor that's been extensively vetted and trustworthy.

Many believe it was not added as a result of customer requirements, but that the government leaned on them to add it as a tool of surveillance.

Re: Reversing the AMD Secure Processor (PSP) – Part 2: Cryptographic Co-Processor

#14

Post by gchadwick »

dtx1 wrote: post #2

I never understood why AMD is not at least making the source of these available. I would actually really like a secure cryptographic processor that's been extensively vetted and trustworthy.

That's exactly what we're doing with OpenTitan: https://opentitan.org/

Which Google will be using in Chromebook for it's security chip https://lowrisc.org/news/nuvoton-develops-opentitan-based-se...

Re: Reversing the AMD Secure Processor (PSP) – Part 2: Cryptographic Co-Processor

#15

Post by eqvinox »

(genuine question, sorry -) is it just me or does anyone else have problems reading the text with the font the webpage uses? It kinda blurs away from "text" into kind of a grey block. I think it might be the very small vertical line to line spacing?

Re: Reversing the AMD Secure Processor (PSP) – Part 2: Cryptographic Co-Processor

#16

Post by zote »

eqvinox wrote: post #15

(genuine question, sorry -) is it just me or does anyone else have problems reading the text with the font the webpage uses? It kinda blurs away from "text" into kind of a grey block. I think it might be the very small vertical line to line spacing?

It's the contrast!, all the code blocks do not meet the WCAG standards for accessible text, especially the second one, which as the hardest one for me to read.

Re: Reversing the AMD Secure Processor (PSP) – Part 2: Cryptographic Co-Processor

#17

Post by cesarb »

mrweasel wrote: post #4

How popular is AMDs PSP, or Intels IME for that matter, in the real world. I've never seen either used at all.

It's mentioned in part 1 of this post, that the PSP is what actually boots the processor (among other things, it sets up the memory controller), so it's used in the real world every time you turn on your AMD-based computer.

Re: Reversing the AMD Secure Processor (PSP) – Part 2: Cryptographic Co-Processor

#18

Post by tonetegeatinst »

shrubble wrote: post #10
rajeshr wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did publish the source: https://github.com/amd/AMD-ASPFW This was the PR(!): https://ir.amd.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1154/am... I wonder if the reported exploits forced them to publish the source.

That is only the part that allows encrypted virtual machines on EPYC cpus. The PSP in some form is on all AMD processors since about 2013/2014.

Encrypted vm's? On epyc?

What's the performance penalty for that?

Re: Reversing the AMD Secure Processor (PSP) – Part 2: Cryptographic Co-Processor

#19

Post by arresin »

gchadwick wrote: post #14
dtx1 wrote: post #2

I never understood why AMD is not at least making the source of these available. I would actually really like a secure cryptographic processor that's been extensively vetted and trustworthy.

That's exactly what we're doing with OpenTitan: https://opentitan.org/ Which Google will be using in Chromebook for it's security chip https://lowrisc.org/news/nuvoton-develops-opentitan-based-se...

Very cool. Bookmarked.
Post reply on HN