Mitigations are attack surface, too
googleprojectzero.blogspot.com
Mitigations are attack surface, too
1–10 of 23 posts
Re: Mitigations are attack surface, too
#2> On Android, it is normal for vendors to add device-specific code to the kernel.
https://i.imgur.com/DnRNrZe.png
Normal for Android : Normal in general :: Madness : Sanity
> This code is a frequent source of security vulnerabilities.
If the first sentence was the shot, that's the chaser.
Re: Mitigations are attack surface, too
#3> On Android, it is normal for vendors to add device-specific code to the kernel. https://i.imgur.com/DnRNrZe.png Normal for Android : Normal in general :: Madness : Sanity > This code is a frequent source of security vulnerabilities. If the first sentence was the shot, that's the chaser.
Apertif: But in the Android ecosystem, that doesn't mean that it actually makes its way into device kernels.
Re: Mitigations are attack surface, too
#4> On Android, it is normal for vendors to add device-specific code to the kernel. https://i.imgur.com/DnRNrZe.png Normal for Android : Normal in general :: Madness : Sanity > This code is a frequent source of security vulnerabilities. If the first sentence was the shot, that's the chaser.
I don't get it; if I'm shipping my own SOC, with my own wizzy latest hardware how else do I get drivers for all my stuff, without adding them myself?
Like, I expect the results to have all the expected "quality" of software written by hardware vendors, but I'm not sure what the alternative is?
EDIT: oh right, userspace drivers for everything. Leaving the comment here anyway...
Re: Mitigations are attack surface, too
#5The irony of Google security blog giving advice to a problem that the company is responsible for it happening in first place.
Had they placed update requirements as part of the Play Store contract, vendors would be more keen in providing the said updates.
Re: Mitigations are attack surface, too
#6The irony of Google security blog giving advice to a problem that the company is responsible for it happening in first place. Had they placed update requirements as part of the Play Store contract, vendors would be more keen in providing the said updates.
The irony is real, but I appreciate P0's transparency here.
Re: Mitigations are attack surface, too
#7> On Android, it is normal for vendors to add device-specific code to the kernel. https://i.imgur.com/DnRNrZe.png Normal for Android : Normal in general :: Madness : Sanity > This code is a frequent source of security vulnerabilities. If the first sentence was the shot, that's the chaser.
Your snark is very welcome, but do you have any proposal of how do you add support for a new Qualcomm SoC, GPU and it's camera modules without modifying the kernel? Or for their basebands?
Linux still has pretty much no path of adding these in userspace, neither it's interested in a stable ABI.
And no, forcing the only big SoC manufacturer in the world to opensource their drivers isn't really going to work.
Re: Mitigations are attack surface, too
#8> On Android, it is normal for vendors to add device-specific code to the kernel. https://i.imgur.com/DnRNrZe.png Normal for Android : Normal in general :: Madness : Sanity > This code is a frequent source of security vulnerabilities. If the first sentence was the shot, that's the chaser.
Your snark is very welcome, but do you have any proposal of how do you add support for a new Qualcomm SoC, GPU and it's camera modules without modifying the kernel? Or for their basebands? Linux still has pretty much no path of adding these in userspace, neither it's interested in a stable ABI. And no, forcing the only big SoC manufacturer in the world to opensource their drivers isn't really going to work.
If forced to choose between open-sourcing and upstreaming their drivers, or supporting them for 5+ years and forcing their customers to actually deliver those updates to end users, then Qualcomm absolutely would choose the open-source route. QC's taking the path of least resistance, but if we take "ship it and forget it" off the menu of choices, they'll change.
Re: Mitigations are attack surface, too
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your snark is very welcome, but do you have any proposal of how do you add support for a new Qualcomm SoC, GPU and it's camera modules without modifying the kernel? Or for their basebands? Linux still has pretty much no path of adding these in userspace, neither it's interested in a stable ABI. And no, forcing the only big SoC manufacturer in the world to opensource their drivers isn't really going to work.
If forced to choose between open-sourcing and upstreaming their drivers, or supporting them for 5+ years and forcing their customers to actually deliver those updates to end users, then Qualcomm absolutely would choose the open-source route. QC's taking the path of least resistance, but if we take "ship it and forget it" off the menu of choices, they'll change.
How would that work? Really?
I mean, if you ever worked on any hardware, there's not many choices you have. Qualcomm says "no" and there's nothing much you can really do to get the same kind of software. It's also not interesting from financial perspective to do that. Incentives aren't there.
This "oh, just force them!" mindset is incredibly naive and hasn't worked for desktop Linux in years. Madness here is trying to do the same thing and expecting different results.
Re: Mitigations are attack surface, too
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
If forced to choose between open-sourcing and upstreaming their drivers, or supporting them for 5+ years and forcing their customers to actually deliver those updates to end users, then Qualcomm absolutely would choose the open-source route. QC's taking the path of least resistance, but if we take "ship it and forget it" off the menu of choices, they'll change.
How would that work? Really? I mean, if you ever worked on any hardware, there's not many choices you have. Qualcomm says "no" and there's nothing much you can really do to get the same kind of software. It's also not interesting from financial perspective to do that. Incentives aren't there. This "oh, just force them!" mindset is incredibly naive and hasn't worked for desktop Linux in years. Madness here is trying t…
Well, hasn't Android been doing something similar in the play store by changing how permissions to access storage are given?
Or was that just a proposal?