Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't imagine how it would be possible to do it any other way for a flash storage device. A mechanical hard drive could at least theoretically have a physical lock attached to the drive head which prevents it from approaching the platters if it is engaged.
Erm. The read head and the write head in a magnetic drive are the same head . You can't keep the head away from the surface if you want to read the disk. But you can disable power to the driver that puts write current into the head. ... and you could absolutely build similar functionality into a flash chip. But most likely you can't actually buy such chips, at least not with any real capacity.
Secure Boot is broken on 200 models from 5 big device makers
81–90 of 147 posts
Re: Secure Boot is broken on 200 models from 5 big device makers
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't imagine how it would be possible to do it any other way for a flash storage device. A mechanical hard drive could at least theoretically have a physical lock attached to the drive head which prevents it from approaching the platters if it is engaged.
Erm. The read head and the write head in a magnetic drive are the same head . You can't keep the head away from the surface if you want to read the disk. But you can disable power to the driver that puts write current into the head. ... and you could absolutely build similar functionality into a flash chip. But most likely you can't actually buy such chips, at least not with any real capacity.
Re: Secure Boot is broken on 200 models from 5 big device makers
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not any less reasonable than expecting a mechanic to be competent and knowledgeable with brakes.
... except that in my experience most mechanics are competent with brakes, and most motherboard makers are not competent with cryptography, or indeed with anything having to do with software. The auto repair industry has certain standards, and the computer industry... doesn't. In fact, the computer industry does everything it can to insulate itself from any kind of responsibility.
Because if they aren't and something happens the mechanic is the one who ends up rotting in a cell. Put the same penalties in place for ODMs and OEMs, mandating that machine owners absolutely always can change the locks to their own property, and mysteriously every single problem we have ever seen with secure boot is no longer some obscure inevitable unavoidable technology issue.
Re: Secure Boot is broken on 200 models from 5 big device makers
#84Re: Secure Boot is broken on 200 models from 5 big device makers
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also things around physical access: if you steal my laptop, FDE prevents you from getting my data immediately but if you install malware which takes over the boot process, you get that data as soon as I type in my password. If the process changes so the hardware only loads signed firmware, which only loads a signed boot loader, which only loads a signed kernel, etc. that avenue of attack is closed. It also makes it p…
> other than Apple nobody has really been committed to doing it well I believe Chromebooks also do this fairly well.
Re: Secure Boot is broken on 200 models from 5 big device makers
#86Re: Secure Boot is broken on 200 models from 5 big device makers
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
do folks in the business really simply steal a laptop and try to pull all data? or do they steal the laptop and wipe it and flip it... if they wanted your data wouldnt they steal you, the human, too ? the signing method only offers buying more time before the innevitable data is "breached" by a theat actor - its the same buying-time for any and all encryption. the system can get too complex, and the underlying proble…
> do folks in the business really simply steal a laptop and try to pull all data? or do they steal the laptop and wipe it and flip it... if they wanted your data wouldnt they steal you, the human, too ? Governments definitely worry about it, and I’d be shocked if e.g. banks didn’t also put it into requirements. Access can be temporary, too: imagine if you get 15 minute alone in someone’s office or they have a kiosk i…
of course govts worry about data loss - and implanted root-kits; yes we want to prevent those but my point is there are many steps along the path where the complexity can get out hand, and every added step to a system is another step of potential failure - and anything we invent will be vurnerable to human mistakes/errors/ect (like we've literally seen). the problem is the firmware is mutable, the os is mutable, ect ect. the signed stages are a bandaide (not that im smart enough to solve the problem) and it's a matter of time before something like a cert leak happens (again). its funny too because we worry about 1000's of folks computers having a rootkit (that needs physical access when things like my-pc-looks-tampered-with are not considered), and then we let location data be gathered by literally every company, hmmm
the scenario where 15 min alone in somebodys office, (this made me laugh actually - theres a countless amount of what-ifs): a company with any kind of compliance should never let an untrusted person be alone (especially with access to a computer); a smaller company, surly we'd assume would be less of a target, but not a guarntee - but thats also why all companies should not leave their vaults with raw cash open for any to access.
as far as used systems going; folks will always fall victim for that which they do not know. for a newly owned computer a user should be fresh installing the firmware and OS. but convience has folks trained to plug-and-play with 0 downtime, 0 setup, 0 knowledge of options. apple, of course, that cannot be done on the same level as my non-apple system is done. and from what i remember, apple folks need to have proof of reciept for a used-sale, and even then can still get trolled on a used-sale with the find-my-mac lockout - maybe its improved nowaday; i'll simply pass and rather buy new (not that im supporting apple)
Re: Secure Boot is broken on 200 models from 5 big device makers
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Secure Boot protects against booting a kernel image that's been tampered with. If the running kernel is vulnerable to root-level exploits, it can't help you, but it can prevent a malicious attacker from switching a trusted kernel for a malicious, modified copy.
> it can prevent ... switching a trusted kernel for a malicious, modified copy. Or a free OS.
So sign your own kernel with your own keys and enroll them to your UEFI and you have 0 problem with installing "a free OS" (it can also just be regular EFI binaries).
Re: Secure Boot is broken on 200 models from 5 big device makers
#89Re: Secure Boot is broken on 200 models from 5 big device makers
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also things around physical access: if you steal my laptop, FDE prevents you from getting my data immediately but if you install malware which takes over the boot process, you get that data as soon as I type in my password. If the process changes so the hardware only loads signed firmware, which only loads a signed boot loader, which only loads a signed kernel, etc. that avenue of attack is closed. It also makes it p…
do folks in the business really simply steal a laptop and try to pull all data? or do they steal the laptop and wipe it and flip it... if they wanted your data wouldnt they steal you, the human, too ? the signing method only offers buying more time before the innevitable data is "breached" by a theat actor - its the same buying-time for any and all encryption. the system can get too complex, and the underlying proble…
in the 90s Israeli celebright made millions of govt procurement for ...i forgot the acronyms. but basically devices where you plug a phone and it copies all contacts and messages.