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

Uncorrectable freedom and security issues on x86 platforms (2016)

decentralize.today

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 141 posts

Re: Uncorrectable freedom and security issues on x86 platforms (2016)

#121

Post by hashhar »

Am I missing something here?

> Secure Boot, which even now requires FOSS users to purchase a license from Microsoft to boot FOSS on affected machines that lack an appropriate Secure Boot override.

I recently installed rEFInd from source by using a self-singed certificate (signed the binary using it and enrolled the key into the EFI using mokutil) and it worked. I certainly didn't have to pay MS. I do know that rEFInd provides a key of their own (using the distro's shim) that obviously has trust rooted at MS.

Re: Uncorrectable freedom and security issues on x86 platforms (2016)

#122

Post by discreditable »

__jal wrote: post #79
rocqua wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have yet to hear any explanation of the IME that makes sense without the presence user-hostile intent. The entirety of enterprise laptop management. Not because you don't want users to change their laptop. The point is to be able to run updates for the users. Or consider the remote KVM option. Disregarding security, that is a sysadmin's wet dream. Being able to recover a system that can't boot saves a lot of boot…

I get all that - I've worked in enterprise IT my entire career. It does not explain the 30 minute timer.

> It does not explain the 30 minute timer.

An innocent use would be: "If the ME is hung, turn it off and on again."

Re: Uncorrectable freedom and security issues on x86 platforms (2016)

#123

Post by upofadown »

>As Intel owns all rights to the x86 architecture, there will never be any new manufacturers licensed to make x86 chips ...

This strikes me as the root problem here. How can one company be granted a monopoly on what is basically an instruction set? Particularly in the case of the instruction set our civilization runs on?

Since I can't understand how something like this could happen I don't understand why any replacement architecture wouldn't end up being controlled by a single entity.

Re: Uncorrectable freedom and security issues on x86 platforms (2016)

#124

Post by bogomipz »

bubblethink wrote: post #62
bogomipz wrote: post #13

I was struck by the following passage: >including Secure Boot, which even now requires FOSS users to purchase a license from Microsoft to boot FOSS on affected machines that lack an appropriate Secure Boot override." Can someone explain this to me, would this be for instance be Lenovo laptops making a deal with Microsoft since Windows is the default OS installed on these laptops? Is Microsoft mandating all OEMs/hardw…

I tend to think the SecureBoot isn't really a grand conspiracy. You can't realistically expect end users to be in charge of keys. So MS does what's best for itself. The problem is with poor implementations by vendors that don't support self signing, and in some cases don't even support disabling secure boot.

>"You can't realistically expect end users to be in charge of keys."

Not but the OEM vendors and not MS should be the owner of the sole PK allowed in the engine. MS doesn't make the hardware yet they are in charge of it. I think that's the issue, it has nothing to do with a grand conspiracy.

Re: Uncorrectable freedom and security issues on x86 platforms (2016)

#125

Post by nickpsecurity »

xvilka wrote: post #100
nickpsecurity wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the kind of stuff the boring, slow-moving, TCG group were talking about long ago for improved DRM and security. Then they advertised their backdoors publicly as vPro while people here argued why Intel rand was trustworthy (lol). They sold that as management benefit for enterprises. Eventually those gradual changes got to the current point. Although I recommend switching off x86, I don't buy the claim that we can…

There is DMP x86 (no x86_64 though) CPUs manufacturer: http://www.dmp.com.tw/

Never even heard of them! Thanks for the tip!

Re: Uncorrectable freedom and security issues on x86 platforms (2016)

#126

Post by amluto »

cyphar wrote: post #91
amluto wrote: post #84

> These technologies, in turn, are used to implement various forms of remote control and Digital Rights Management (DRM) technologies, including Secure Boot, which even now requires FOSS users to purchase a license from Microsoft to boot FOSS on affected machines that lack an appropriate Secure Boot override. I dislike the mandatory use of these features as much as the next nerd, but this is inaccurate FUD. Secure Bo…

> > These technologies, in turn, are used to implement various forms of remote control and Digital Rights Management (DRM) technologies, including Secure Boot, which even now requires FOSS users to purchase a license from Microsoft to boot FOSS on affected machines that lack an appropriate Secure Boot override. > I dislike the mandatory use of these features as much as the next nerd, but this is inaccurate FUD. Secur…

> "Regular code" doesn't mean it's not proprietary, and doesn't mean that it's not concerning for free software users.

Which has essentially nothing to do with the article and isn't even Intel's fault in any meaningful sense.

Re: Uncorrectable freedom and security issues on x86 platforms (2016)

#127

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

upofadown wrote: post #123

>As Intel owns all rights to the x86 architecture, there will never be any new manufacturers licensed to make x86 chips ... This strikes me as the root problem here. How can one company be granted a monopoly on what is basically an instruction set? Particularly in the case of the instruction set our civilization runs on? Since I can't understand how something like this could happen I don't understand why any replacem…

I believe it's not the instruction set they have patents on per se, but rather on how to implement it efficiently.

Re: Uncorrectable freedom and security issues on x86 platforms (2016)

#128

Post by bogomipz »

wmf wrote: post #64
bogomipz wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, I have to wonder how much of bureaucratic headache that is to get your bootloader signed.

James Bottomley navigated the bureaucracy and lived to tell about it: https://blog.hansenpartnership.com/adventures-in-microsoft-u...

Oh interesting, thanks for the link.

Re: Uncorrectable freedom and security issues on x86 platforms (2016)

#129

Post by wolfgke »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #127
upofadown wrote: post #123

>As Intel owns all rights to the x86 architecture, there will never be any new manufacturers licensed to make x86 chips ... This strikes me as the root problem here. How can one company be granted a monopoly on what is basically an instruction set? Particularly in the case of the instruction set our civilization runs on? Since I can't understand how something like this could happen I don't understand why any replacem…

I believe it's not the instruction set they have patents on per se, but rather on how to implement it efficiently.

Which provides strong evidence that patents are the root of all evil.

Re: Uncorrectable freedom and security issues on x86 platforms (2016)

#130

Post by johnp_ »

bogomipz wrote: post #6

The article states the following for RISCV: >"While this architecture is extremely limited in performance, price" Can anyone say thy the performance of RISCV is so lacking?

Many good answers already, but I want to mention RISC-V Boom (superscalar, out-of-order), which seems to, in theory, beat ARM Cortex A9 quite nicely:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVPSlS2v1F0

The whole toolchain they are working with looks quite awesome tbh.

Commercially, the Freedom U500 platform seems to be really interesting:

https://dev.sifive.com/documentation/freedom-u500-platform-b...

Post reply on HN