top | item 39879099

(no title)

snnn | 1 year ago

That's the most interesting part. No, we don't know it yet. The backdoor is so sophisticated that none of us can fully understand it. It is not a “usual” security bug.

discuss

order

mrln|1 year ago

What makes you say that? I haven't started reverse engineerinng it myself, but from all I have read, people who did have a very good understanding of what it does. They just can't use it themselves, because they would need to have the attacker's private key.

saagarjha|1 year ago

It’s not that we can’t understand it, it’s just that work to understand it is ongoing.

heresWaldo|1 year ago

Yeah these types of security issues will be used by politicians to force hardware makers to lockdown hardware, embed software in chips.

The go fast startups habit of “import the world to make my company products” is a huge security issue IT workers ignore.

The only solution politics and big tech will chase is obsolete said job market by pulling more of the stack into locked down hardware, with updates only allowed to come from the gadget vendor.

georgyo|1 year ago

I'm not saying political forces won't try legislating the problem away, but that won't even help here.

A supply chain attack can happen in hardware or software. Hardware has firmware, which is software.

What makes this XZ attack so scary is that it was directly from a "trusted" source. A similar attack could come from any trusted source.

At least with software it is much easier to patch.

avidiax|1 year ago

The NSA demands that Intel and AMD provide backdoor ways to turn off the IME/PSP, which are basically a small OS running in a small processor inside your processor. So the precedent is that the government wants less embedded software in their hardware, at least for themselves.

If we relied on gadget vendors to maintain such software, I think we can just look at any IoT or router manufacturer to get an idea of just how often and for how long they will update the software. So that idea will probably backfire spectacularly if implemented.

berkes|1 year ago

Why would "embed software in chips" be a solution?

If anything, I'd expect it to be an even bigger risk, because when (not if) a security issue is found in the hardware, you now have no way to fix it, other than throwing out this server/fridge/toothbrush or whatever is running it.

WesolyKubeczek|1 year ago

Which will make updates either expensive or impossible. You will be able to write books about exploitable bugs in the hardware, and those books will easily survive several editions.