On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 2:15 AM Brian Herman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sorry, I'm going to read the documentation more and make this a personal goal > by the end of 2019. I didn't want to stir up so much drama. Time and money > are not constraints on this particular problem. One way or another by January > 22, 2019 I will have either figured it out or I will pay to figure it out. I > have used Linux since college. I have no kids. I have no girlfriend. I have > tons of free time. > Sorry to see your thread going off-topic. I don't know if it will help you but I've wirtten detailed blog posts on my experience in getting coreboot to work on the broadwell and skylake librems. It's not a "guide how to port to coreboot" but it explains some of the problems I've had and it might help you save some time. You can go to https://puri.sm/coreboot/timeline/ and search for "Youness" to see my blog posts in chronological order on the right side bar. Good luck with your project!
> Make It So, > Brian Herman > > > > > > > > > > > > So you have made it to the end...... > Thanks for reading! > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 4:42 PM Youness Alaoui > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Wow, Mike, seriously, I am going to side 100% with Nico, you are >> spreading FUD, making your own personal opinions (which are themselves >> derived from other people's FUD) and stating them as the universal >> law. >> The ME is not known to be a backdoor. It doesn't mean that it's not a >> backdoor, it simply means that it's not known to be a backdoor. The >> fact that it's closed source and not user-controlled (Even if you had >> the sources, you can't modify them and update it to your custom ME >> version) is where the problem actually is. There *might* be a backdoor >> hidden somewhere in there, or maybe there isn't, nobody knows, but >> there has been a lot of research done on the ME and so far, none have >> been found as far as I know. >> >> Your worry about what the ME does, how it can give someone control >> over the PC, etc.. are NOT what qualifies it as a "backdoor", but like >> Nico said, it's a frontdoor, it's not a "hidden access", it's a >> "promoted access" to the PC, it's the main ME functionality which is >> well documented. You don't have to use some "only known to some secret >> person" trick to access the ME, you just need to point your web >> browser to the right port on localhost. >> Your comparison of saying the ME is a backdoor is like saying that a >> webcam is a spying device because it can capture images of you! Yeah, >> sure, that's technically true, it can capture images of you, but only >> after you plug it in and open an image capture software, and you still >> have control of those images. The fact that the webcam schematics >> isn't open means that it could still have a small wifi or GSM chip >> embedded inside which makes it send the images to the CIA, but it's >> not a guarantee that it does. So, yes, you can complain that the >> webcam isn't open hardware so you can't technically trust what it >> does, but you can't just come out and say with absolute certainty that >> any and all webcams in the world are spying devices for the CIA, >> that's just ridiculous. >> >> So, back to the ME, we know exactly what it does, it's all extremely >> well documented and explained, the fact that it allows remote control >> of the PC is actually the reason for its existence and it's a very >> very valid reason in the corporate context and the fact that those >> features also 'coincidentally' resemble the features of an actual >> 'trojan horse' virus, doesn't mean that the ME itself is a virus.. >> otherwise the 'rm' linux command would be considered a virus since it >> deletes files and there are some viruses that can delete your files as >> well.... >> Now the problem is that it's closed source, and not user controlled >> (remote control features *are* user controlled, I'm talking about >> being able to replace the firmware with your own), so yes, it can't be >> audited by the larger open source community, but that also doesn't >> guarantee any security necessarily (how many open source programs >> still have security bugs?). >> >> Either way, you yourself said earlier, when talking about the AtomBIOS >> that "it could be disassembled quite well with AtomDis - >> https://github.com/mikebdp2/AtomDis - reducing any security concerns >> regarding this blob to a minimum.", well, the ME can be disassembled >> with any x86 disassembler, so why can't you also say that "reduces any >> security concerns regarding the ME to a minimum". >> >> We're about to get full control back of the ME. I've been working for >> the past few weeks on reproducing the PTResearch buffer overflow >> exploit on the ME, and yesterday they released a PoC for Apollolake >> (in case you missed it : https://github.com/ptresearch/IntelTXE-PoC), >> so with the progress I made and with that, I should be able to soon >> port it to skylake (and write docs on how to port to other platforms >> as well) which will at least give us the ability to gain back the >> 'user-controlled' aspect of it as we'd have code execution on it. >> Which by the way, also means that BootGuard can be disabled (since the >> ME is the one checking for the boot guard signatures), which should >> enable the ability to port coreboot to a lot more machines (including >> the T450S that this thread is supposed to be about). Hopefully.... >> >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 5:50 AM Mike Banon <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > What suspicious activities? I know, for many people the Intel ME firmware >> > > contains unwanted features. But these features are documented. >> > > In your world, a device becomes backdoored because somebody >> > > didn't read the manual?!? >> > >> > Somewhere I've seen a report about Intel ME suspicious network >> > activities (if I remember correctly they were using Wireshark on a PC >> > placed between a computer with ME and the outside network) which has >> > affected my personal opinion. Although it could be argued that its >> > just some OEM has set up their ME in such a way, maybe even in a >> > documented way (although a way undesirable to the end user), still it >> > didn't look good to me. In addition, regarding all those Intel ME >> > vulnerabilities recently discovered: one could assume that at least >> > some of these "vulnerabilities" @ were actually the backdoors which >> > have been patched just because they have been discovered by someone >> > else than the american intelligence agencies who always knew them @ . >> > Now Intel has patched these "vulnerabilities", but we do not know if >> > some other "vulnerabilities" have been left unnoticed by the outsiders >> > or if some new "vulnerabilities" have been added. And we the open >> > source enthusiasts can't even verify that personally, because the >> > source code of Intel ME firmware is closed. I cannot understand, how >> > such a high level professional open source developer as you, Nico, >> > finds it okay to just trust Intel ME despite its' deeply proprietary >> > nature. Management engine with a closed source proprietary firmware - >> > it even sounds awful..... I totally agree with Richard Stallman when >> > he calls Intel ME a backdoor - https://stallman.org/intel.html >> > >> > > Please read [1] and [2] very carefully, I hope even you will spot >> > > technical differences. [...] You cannot just take somebody's words >> > > and give them a different meaning just because somebody else used >> > > them in a different context. [...] You did it again, btw., stating >> > > something >> > > (definition of frontdoor) and making it look like the generally accepted >> > > definition. >> > >> > Before receiving your message I knew only one definition of a >> > "frontdoor" computing term which I described in my previous message. >> > Although I don't know which definition is more popular, sorry for >> > misunderstanding you. >> > >> > Mike >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 12:24 AM Nico Huber <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > *sigh*, >> > > >> > > On 28.08.2018 22:00, Mike Banon wrote: >> > > > You are right, my choice of words has been far from ideal. I apologize >> > > > for that. However, to be confident that Intel ME is a backdoor >> > > > (personal opinion) - one does not have to be its' creator. >> > > >> > > sorry I meant the creator of us (God) not the ME. I doubt the creator >> > > of the ME knows everybody's opinion either. Which is what I was talking >> > > about. A good practice is to quote and answer below that quote, this way >> > > you can easily check if what you write makes sense in the given context. >> > > >> > > > I think >> > > > there are enough documents describing its' functionality and enough >> > > > evidence gathered by the independent security researchers about the >> > > > suspicious activities of this hardware module. If it looks like a >> > > > duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a >> > > > duck? >> > > >> > > WTF again? what suspicious activities? I know, for many people the ME >> > > firmware contains unwanted features. But these features are documented. >> > > In your world, a device becomes backdoored because somebody didn't read >> > > the manual?!? >> > > >> > > > There are no technical differences between the 'backdoor', and >> > > > 'frontdoor'. >> > > >> > > Please read [1] and [2] very carefully, I hope even you will spot tech- >> > > nical differences. >> > > >> > > > Like a 'conspiracy theorist', 'frontdoor' is a term >> > > > coming from the american 3-letter-agencies. 'Frontdoor' is their term >> > > > for a 'backdoor' to which only they (currently) have an access. This >> > > > article summarizes it well: >> > > > https://www.justsecurity.org/16503/security-front-doors-vs-back-doors-distinction-difference/ >> > > > . 'Backdoor' term has a negative reputation, so they would like to >> > > > push this 'frontdoor' term forward. >> > > >> > > This is very infantile. You cannot just take somebody's words and give >> > > them a different meaning just because somebody else used them in a dif- >> > > ferent context. When I say frontdoor, I mean a door at a front where >> > > everyone can see it. A backdoor implies something hidden, the ME fea- >> > > tures were never hidden (AFAIK, a stupid OEM may prove me wrong, but I >> > > don't know any instance). >> > > >> > > You did it again, btw., stating something (definition of frontdoor) and >> > > making it look like the generally accepted definition. >> > > >> > > Nico >> > > >> > > [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/back_door >> > > [2] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/front_door >> >> -- >> coreboot mailing list: [email protected] >> https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
