Ok, so these "AMD flaws" are nowhere near anything like Meltdown or Spectre.
According to their "whitepaper", it lets you pwn your PSP and chipset if you already have root access on the main CPU. In the worst case, it's like the Intel ME BUP bug from december.
It's useful for researchers, coreboot porting, breaking DRM, etc. But it's no use for a remote (or even unprivileged local) attacker.
Their website makes it look way more dangerous than it is.
Then there's a lot of fishy stuff, like
- too much effort went into the website's design
- the website has lots of infographics and not-very-specific text, repeating the same things over and over again
- the whitepaper doesn't look like a whitepaper, and seems to be written with non-technical people in mind, especially the first few pages
- they have a huge legal disclaimer that says they may have financial interest in the value of AMD shares
- cts-labs.com exists for less than 1 year
@Wolf480pl also they only gave AMD 24 hours notice. 'responsible' disclosure my ass.
@samis @Wolf480pl I don't know what website you two are talking about, but picking on researchers for disclosing PSP flaws is, IMO, ridiculous.
PSP itself is a flaw. A malignant tumor that shouldn't exist.
Shame on you two for defending it.
@taoeffect @samis
I'm not defending PSP, but it's problematic only as long as we can't control it.
And I'm not picking on researchers for disclosing the flaws. I'm picking on them for making it look like a CPU flaw, like-Meltdown-except-worse. And telling people that their network is in danger because of it.
Also, the researchers didn't disclose any technical details, ust a bunch of noise.
It just looks like a hoax or an attempt to harm AMD by spreading FUD.
@Wolf480pl @samis PSP is like-Meltdown-except-worse. I see nothing wrong with that description of it.
@taoeffect @samis No it isn't. You can't exploit a flaw in PSP from an unprivileged process. Or from JS running in the browser. You have to be root to exploit PSP. At which point, why bother doing that, you got root anyway.
@Wolf480pl @samis Meltdown doesn't give you total control over a computer. PSP does (my understanding), and it does so with no defense or mitigation possible.
A purposefully-built unstoppable backdoor is worse than an accidental design-flaw.
@taoeffect @samis But you have to already have total control over a computer in order to use PSP to gain total control over the computer.
@Wolf480pl @samis Eh, I doubt that. Is there proof that there's no master key?
@Wolf480pl @samis (Cause, why else would they build it?)
@Wolf480pl @samis I'm more than OK with websites bringing up PSP and Intel ME and throwing as much fear and doubt on those abominations as possible. Not enough of that being done.
But this is false information. They're telling people that because of these vulns, their computers are in danger, while in fact they aren't.
Also, they're doing it asymmetrically. It looks like it's designed to make everyone switch from AMD to Intel. And even if it's not on purpose, that'll be the effect. And Intel has enough power as it is.
> while in fact they aren't.
Who says they aren't? There's every reason to believe they are. Again, show me proof a master key doesn't exist.
(Does PSP have a built-in server constantly listening in like Intel ME?)
> It looks like it's designed to make everyone switch from AMD to Intel.
Where do they do that? "Intel" isn't mentioned on the page.
@taoeffect @samis
>"Intel" isn't mentioned on this page
Think for a minute.
This page is clearly not made with tech gurus who know RISC-V in mind. It's for an average reader who knows just 2 CPU makes: Intel and AMD. It says AMD is bad. If you have only AMD and Intel to choose from, and AMD is bad, you buy Intel.
@samis @taoeffect
As for "they aren't in danger", I didn't make myself clear:
These flaws do not cause these computers to be in danger. They aren't any more in danger than they would be if these flaws didn't exist.
As for the master key, due to Occam's Razor, it doesn't exist until there's a proof that it does exist.
@Wolf480pl @samis That's not how Occam's Razor works.
The simplest explanation for why they would build a hardware-remote-control is to [expletive]ing remote control computers.
@Wolf480pl @samis One doesn't need _HARDWARE_ to remote control a computer. You can do it with hundreds of available software. Why would they go to the trouble of making hardware? — to make it unstoppable.
@taoeffect @samis Have you ever installed an OS remotely?
Or have you ever had to hard-reset a computer on which all software was hanging, and the computer was at the other end of the city?
@Wolf480pl @samis Yes, I have installed OS's remotely, and it never required the use of Intel ME or AMD PSP.
I have never had to hard-reset a computer on the other end of the city, but if I did I would have someone go there (or someone who is already there) and hard reset it.
These are not features consumers asked for, want, or need.
@taoeffect @samis these are features that are required in server rooms, and in places where you have a ton of workstations all alike, managed by a central IT team.
Like a computer room at a school or university. Or in a big corpo.
@Wolf480pl @samis I haven't heard of specific universities or companies using Intel ME or AMD PSP — I'm sure some exist, but I _know_ they don't need PSP/ME to do such admin.
The point is that these are insane backdoors that shouldn't exist in consumer products in the first place.
@Wolf480pl @samis These are backdoors that one is welcome to offer as a speciality product for a niche market that's interested in such backdoors.
@Wolf480pl @samis Consumer products, OTOH, should be Backdoor Free™ by default.
@taoeffect @samis Your definition of backdoor seems pretty broad. Do you also consider an ssh daemon to be a backdoor?
@Wolf480pl @samis Not if you installed it yourself (unless sshd has a built-in backdoor I'm not aware of).
@taoeffect @samis then there's no marked that's intrested in such backdoors, because when out-of-band management hardware is installed with these people's permission, it's not a backdoor anymore.
@Wolf480pl @samis Sorry, don't understand what you mean.
@taoeffect @samis you said that the manufacturers should provide backdoors only for the niche markets that request it.
But if a backdoor is requested by the buyer, it's no longer a backdoor.
So you can't provide backdoors for people who request them.
@Wolf480pl @samis lol, yes, that's the whole point. Backdoors are a bad thing.
@taoeffect @samis so there should be no backdoors on any hardware, not just consumer hardware.
@Wolf480pl @samis Well, sure, that's one fine way to look at it.
@Wolf480pl @samis Uh, yes, basically make good processors, and give your backdoor-prone processors to those who explicitly ask for them.
Assume most of your users don't want to be pwn'ed, and aren't an enemy you're trying to take down.
@Wolf480pl @samis It's also OK to supply backdoor'd processors to an actual enemy, but again, if you're treating your users as an enemy, you should go to jail.
@taoeffect @samis btw. Intel ME is in the chipset, not in the CPU, but w/e.
Ok, now we have another problem:
users (think they) want netflix
netflix wants DRM
DRM will be broken, unless it has support from some hardware that doesn't obey the user
@Wolf480pl @samis Well, figure it out without selling backdoor'd CPUs. Don't make your little DRM dilemma an excuse to backdoor the world.
@taoeffect @samis ok, now tell me how PSP is a backdoor as opposed to just a DRM thingy?
@Wolf480pl @samis I don't know whether AMD PSP is as bad as Intel ME.
ME is a backdoor for obvious reasons (server that listens for remote commands).
I don't know if PSP does that by default. But PSP bypasses the CPU, and control of PSP is control over CPU etc. That sounds like a bad idea, and depending on the details, it could be a fatal idea.
@Wolf480pl @samis A big problem with these companies is they're closed source. No way to really tell what's going on, and there's little reason to trust them.
@taoeffect @samis yes. But we have no proof that there's something evil going on in PSP, we have only a suspicion.
@Wolf480pl @samis Yeah, and good reason to believe there might be, given what Intel did with ME, and given the fact that this piece of hardware shouldn't exist in a consumer product in the first place.
@taoeffect @samis still, not a reason to manupulate stock prices and market share by pretending to have a proof that you can be pwned by means of PSP.
@samis @taoeffect *that people can be pwned by means of PSP
@taoeffect @samis so what you want is that any remote management hardware should be on a separate hardware module that the computer owner has to explicitely put it in place for it to work. A software way of disabling it is in your opinion unacceptable?