[HN Gopher] Trustworthy Computing in 2021
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Trustworthy Computing in 2021
        
       Author : hasheddan
       Score  : 93 points
       Date   : 2021-10-20 11:05 UTC (11 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (ariadne.space)
 (TXT) w3m dump (ariadne.space)
        
       | blueflow wrote:
       | Is the author the same person that talks about Inclusivity, and
       | then posts screencaps of other people they are having
       | disagreements with to twitter, for their followers to sneer at?
       | [1]
       | 
       | Is this the same person who uses the departure of a developer as
       | a reason to "fix" a community [2], when the mailmap of one of
       | their projects shows they are referring to their own faked
       | departure? [3]
       | 
       | This stuff doesn't make the Alpine Linux project look good. I
       | totally see that its very rude to attack a person like this, but
       | i think its abusive behavior and needs to be called out.
       | 
       | [1] https://twitter.com/ariadneconill/status/1445586541040979971
       | 
       | [2] https://ariadne.space/2021/08/08/on-the-topic-of-
       | community-m...
       | 
       | [3]
       | https://github.com/pkgconf/pkgconf/commit/c7c3ddbfcf67a1b46d...
        
       | hyperstar wrote:
       | What was the thing that detracted from the corebooted Thinkpad's
       | trustworthiness?
        
         | rangerdan wrote:
         | Corebooted Thinkpads are the gold standard. Don't listen to
         | this article - it's utter nonsense - the author even recommend
         | Libreboot which is effectively abandonware barely maintained by
         | one unstable individual.
        
       | hyperstar wrote:
       | The machines that get 5/5, do they have open hardware? I heard
       | somewhere that there's this thing called microcode that resides
       | in the processor and could contain backdoors. Is that taken into
       | account here?
        
         | tenebrisalietum wrote:
         | It's not.
         | 
         | Microcode (insofar as how the term is used for x86/AMD)
         | controls the operation of the CPU itself and the implementation
         | of certain CPU instructions that aren't hardwired. It's too
         | low-level to do things on its own like send a copy of RAM
         | through a network adapter, etc.
         | 
         | Nonetheless, if you could manage to reverse engineer the
         | microcode (which is likely different per CPU manufacturer and
         | microarchitecture), and decrypt it (I do know AMD's microcode
         | was not encrypted for a time, but is now), you could probably
         | alter the behavior of some CPU instructions. Maybe you could
         | manipulate some CPU instructions into allowing code to be
         | executed where it wouldn't previously be executed, e.g.
         | ignoring privilege checks, etc. and maybe you could do it
         | without introducing side effects and causing existing code to
         | misbehave or crash.
         | 
         | However it's a thousand times easier to modify the actual code
         | the CPU is executing from RAM somehow - through OS
         | vulnerabilities, etc. Any CPU code is either going to be
         | running in kernel mode with full privileges or eventually
         | interacting with code that does through some sort of interface.
         | Operating system code is either available (open source) or
         | widely distributed (Windows). Modern software development is
         | further and further abstracted away from real hardware with
         | ever increasing layers which are also either open source or
         | widely distributed.
         | 
         | The possibility for finding human error somewhere in this
         | scheme is vastly more likely to produce useful vulnerabilities
         | - not the CPU microcode which is completely unknown,
         | undocumented, encrypted, changes which each CPU, and updates
         | thereof provided by the manufacturer.
        
         | guerrilla wrote:
         | None of it is open hardware but some of it has been reverse
         | engineered. I know some x86 CPU's have had their microcode
         | reverse engineered, starting with the 8086 but also AMD's K8
         | and K10. There are lots of die photos of the 486DX chips and a
         | patent says the microcode was pretty small (only 250 "lines",
         | 12kbits.) About the POWER CPUs I have no idea. They're RISC so
         | do they even have microcode?
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | joe_the_user wrote:
       | What would be a trustworthy motherboard to use to build a solid
       | machine learning system, with a budget of say $5-10K?
        
         | nine_k wrote:
         | A Talos workstation?
         | 
         | But the question is moot because GPUs have proprietary
         | firmware, and NVidia drivers that give you CUDA are also
         | closed-source.
         | 
         | Maybe air-gapping your sensitive machines is a more viable
         | approach for ML.
        
       | ilaksh wrote:
       | Weird to me that more people are not working on Redox OS in this
       | context.
        
         | guerrilla wrote:
         | Why would that be necessary? They can if they want, I'm excited
         | about Redox too, but Linux and the GNU ecosystem is already
         | free software.
        
       | rangerdan wrote:
       | Stopped reading at "Macbook is ... as trustworthy as the
       | Libreboot ThinkPad". Anyone who trusts closed source,
       | proprietary, for-profit platforms from PRISM partners doesn't
       | know what they're talking about.
        
         | ariadneconill wrote:
         | Strictly from a hardware POV. That wasn't intended to be praise
         | for Apple, but rather an indictment of the industry at large
         | that Apple designed hardware that is easier to extend trust to.
        
       | ece wrote:
       | How would the HiFive Unmatched stack up here? Seems like it would
       | do rather well:
       | 
       | https://starfivetech.com/uploads/hifive-unmatched-sw-referen...
       | 
       | https://sifive.cdn.prismic.io/sifive/28560457-c5a4-4f88-866c...
        
         | ariadneconill wrote:
         | It would, but I don't have an Unmatched board so I didn't
         | evaluate it.
         | 
         | Same reason why I did not mention the Pine64 stuff: I don't own
         | any of it.
        
       | guerrilla wrote:
       | It's great to see that more people are still working on this and
       | that people have an interest.
       | 
       | If you are interested in this kind of thing, then you'll also
       | want to check out LibreBoot[1] and Bootstrappable Builds[2]. The
       | latter is working with stage0 [3] and mes [4] to bootstrap Guix
       | (among other projects.) All of that is further down the chain,
       | but we'll need it if we want to build trustworthy systems.
       | 
       | 1. https://libreboot.org/
       | 
       | 2. https://www.bootstrappable.org
       | 
       | 3. https://github.com/oriansj/stage0/
       | 
       | 4. https://www.gnu.org/software/mes/
        
         | matheusmoreira wrote:
         | Wish modern hardware had better support for this. I don't think
         | I'll ever trust their proprietary firmwares. The problem is
         | becoming so widespread. All kinds of peripherals have firmware
         | now. Who knows what they're doing. Did that storage device
         | really delete the data or is it just pretending? Only way to be
         | sure is to physically destroy the device.
        
           | tenebrisalietum wrote:
           | > Only way to be sure is to physically destroy the device.
           | 
           | Or ... never write unencrypted data to the device.
        
             | matheusmoreira wrote:
             | Yeah, that was my solution as well. It's much easier to
             | destroy a small secret key than terabytes of data.
        
               | kragen wrote:
               | Especially with N-of-M secret sharing.
        
           | galcerte wrote:
           | I thought something along these lines when it comes to
           | peripherals, too, but don't these (mice and keyboards
           | chiefly) communicate with PCs through a subset of the USB
           | standard which only handles HID and nothing else?
           | 
           | Would any snooping be possible through an input device if it
           | only did HID?
        
             | matheusmoreira wrote:
             | > PCs through a subset of the USB standard which only
             | handles HID and nothing else?
             | 
             | Yes. Is the device truly limited to doing just that,
             | though? No way to know. I don't know enough electronics to
             | tear it down and analyze its parts, much less dump firmware
             | and reverse engineer it.
             | 
             | >Would any snooping be possible through an input device if
             | it only did HID?
             | 
             | For all I know, it could be silently storing every
             | keystroke in some small memory module hidden somewhere.
        
               | roywiggins wrote:
               | We had that problem with PS/2 keyboards too, you can buy
               | hardware keyloggers for those.
        
       | nimbius wrote:
       | conspicuously, infuriatingly absent:
       | 
       | https://www.pine64.org/
       | 
       | https://puri.sm/
        
         | jonchang wrote:
         | This article appears to be focused on laptops, desktops, and
         | servers, and the author uses the term "system" to collectively
         | refer to these. If this really is "infurating" (and you're not
         | just using the term to be hyperbolic) then I think recognizing
         | that sometimes blog authors write about topics that are more
         | specific or have a different focus than you'd prefer would help
         | calm you down a bit.
        
           | mepian wrote:
           | The pine64 page has laptops, e.g.
           | https://www.pine64.org/pinebook/
        
         | ariadneconill wrote:
         | I was only evaluating hardware I actually own. I don't own any
         | of the PINE64 SBCs or laptops. And while I have a PinePhone, I
         | rarely use it, it sits in my junk drawer basically.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-10-20 23:01 UTC)