[HN Gopher] Reverse Engineering the M1 [pdf]
___________________________________________________________________
Reverse Engineering the M1 [pdf]
Author : todsacerdoti
Score : 58 points
Date : 2021-08-05 20:12 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (i.blackhat.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (i.blackhat.com)
| CRConrad wrote:
| That's easy: Build a 1970s Italian supercar-style chassis --
| heck, get some consulting help from Lamborghini, if you need --
| but then, in stead of a V12 or even a V8, put one of your trusty
| Bavarian straight-sixes in the middle of it.
|
| What, you mean someone else is trying to usurp the venerated "M1"
| moniker?!? Infidels!
|
| .
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M1
| puszczyk wrote:
| Arguably, the comment is off-topic, but TIL about bmw m1 :)
| kzrdude wrote:
| Is there a video recording to go with this?
| Ristovski wrote:
| Afaik, BlackHat talks/presentations go public after around half
| a year.
| jchw wrote:
| > M1 Linux does not have a cool logo or name
|
| Wonder if this is a subtle jab at Asahi Linux. Hopefully not, as
| I was thoroughly unamused by Corellium's previous antics
| regarding Asahi Linux. It would be a lot nicer to see at least
| polite relations in the future, if not collaboration...
| monocasa wrote:
| Isn't the feeling mutual? I was under the impression that Asahi
| didn't really want Corellium's contributions because they
| considered Corellium's looks at proprietary Apple code to be an
| existential threat to the project's need for clean room RE.
| coldtea wrote:
| Well, they objectively were.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| I believe this is false. The Corellium guys are (much?)
| further along technically. But they don't care to put their
| code in a format that upstream will ever accept. I believe
| this was the main reason collaboration went nowhere.
| Corelliums forked kernel will always be little more then a
| marketing toy because of this.
| jchw wrote:
| In any case, it never had to turn petty, even if they really
| did feel like RE knowledge from Sandcastle was being used.
| Even if code wasn't shared, knowledge could have been. I came
| out with the feeling that they had bigger concerns about
| optics above all, and they couldn't use the same approaches
| that might've worked when they were the David and not the
| Goliath.
|
| I don't want to be the asshole dredging up drama needlessly,
| but the line just feels snide after all that happened. Like,
| if you wanted a slick logo, name and marketing page, you all
| could just make one; you had absolutely no trouble doing so
| for Project Sandcastle. I don't see why this statement needs
| to be made here and now, as nobody would've batted an eye if
| they hadn't said anything.
| monocasa wrote:
| Totally agreed, the pettiness in this case (if we're
| reading a one-off sentence fragment in a slide correctly)
| is unacceptable. I was just commenting that I don't see
| collaboration occurring for the well meaning base
| differences of opinion even once you unwrap away the
| pettiness.
| coldtea wrote:
| > _Even if code wasn't shared, knowledge could have been._
|
| Legally it would be still an issue to share "knowledge"
| with someone who has seen the code.
| mdaniel wrote:
| Wow, I would buy every book written by this person, as the amount
| of knowledge and experience required to pull off a stunt like
| that feels overwhelming
|
| Does anyone know if
| https://dougallj.github.io/applecpu/firestorm.html is the
| "Dougall Johnson's work if you can find it" reference, or is
| there some dark web version?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-05 23:00 UTC)