The Tricky World of Securing Firmware

https://blogs.intel.com/evangelists/2015/02/20/tricky-world-securing-firmware/

by transpute • 11 years ago

51 17 11 years ago

blogs.intel.com

pgeorgi3• 11 years ago

The really interesting bit IMHO is in the comments, where Brian quite bluntly states that Intel merely provides the tools that system manufacturers (ie. Lenovo and so on) want.

So while Intel could make a principled stand here (in favor of end-users), it's ODMs/OEMs that have to work with primarily. CPUs directly bought by end-users are probably a pretty minor part of their revenue, too.

[edit to add:] Of course, I'd still prefer them to get rid of Verified Boot, and have OEMs decide between Measured Boot or no verification at all.

guylhem• 11 years ago

Dear Bryan who may never read this,

As you clearly say, your job is to serve your clients, the manufacturers who do not want their BIOSes to be replaced with something else like coreboot.

You say "Intel has to consider the needs of the system manufacturer along with the end user", but the balance is obviously slanted in one direction. The reason is simple: we end users are not your customers.

As pointed out before, the trickiest issues are with Intel ME and AMT, who can not be removed except on the X200. Otherwise, the luckiest machines will reboot every 30 minutes only. The others won't boot.

You say "Making firmware more open and more secure is an interesting balancing act, and I hope we work towards getting it right". I'm sorry but you don't. Having a backdoor that the physical owner of the machine can not remove is neither secure nor open. If there was a jumper than could be used by the knowledgeable end user to override all his, yes. There is no such things, only barriers.

This is a nice PR attempt to deflect the heat towards Lenovo (for the thinkpads), but sorry, that's vacuous.

There is a moral responsibility in a given design.

At the moment, this is at best the moral equivalent of making weapons without a safety and saying it's not your fault if they can harm the end user, and that the end user should direct the complains to whoever is selling these defective guns. Sorry, but I disagree.

pgeorgi3• 11 years ago

Maybe write that as a comment on his blog? He's quite responsive.

vfclists• 11 years ago

It is the usual "since those who want more control of their systems are a small minority among a small tech-savvy minority, we really can't be arsed" excuse.

Firefox has been doing it, Chrome has been doing it, damn near everyone is doing it.

dmm• 11 years ago

It's frustrating because the same argument could be made about any freedom. It's always a small minority that needs it.

How many individuals really need the first amendment? The Saudi kids in my undergrad PoliSci classes loved to point this out. "Who needs freedom? I'll take my mercedes."

jkot• 11 years ago

Ability to install alternative operating system (such as Linux) extends life expectancy of hardware. That is important for ecology, lower carbon emissions...

I can easily imagine EU to pass new law, which would require "signed bootloader bypass" switch on all newly sold laptops and workstation. Great way to milk Intel, MS, Apple and other manufactures for couple of billions euro.

Kenji• 11 years ago

"Ability to install alternative operating system (such as Linux) extends life expectancy of hardware."

Why should that be true? Source?

kabdib• 11 years ago

You can use a lighter weight OS than a recent version of Windows, which will presumably require fewer resources. Or if some of the hardware goes bad (say the screen fails) but you don't care because you're just doing SSH, you can still use it.

I have a couple of decade-old laptops that are perfectly happy to run Linux, and Windows 7 won't even install on them because they don't have enough memory.

It's also conceivable that a different OS would have a lower thermal profile, resulting in longer hardware lifetime on average.

tbrownaw• 11 years ago

1. Old software becomes less useful over time. This applies to anything that talks to outside systems. There's a new version of HTTP coming out, there are new versions of HTML and CSS, there are new formats for office documents, there are security fixes to SSL libraries, etc.

2. Newer applications tend to not be installable on older OSes. For example, newer IE won't run on Windows XP.

3. Therefore, older OSes become useless after a while, if you're talking to the outside world.

4. Therefore, being able to install a new OS on your hardware, can make that hardware useful longer.

5. Newer OSes may not always support older hardware. Also, companies that produce OSes (Microsoft, Apple, Red Hat, etc) may go out of business.

6. Therefore, being able to choose from a wider variety of OSes to install, increases the chances that you'll be able to find one that you can use.

7. Therefore, having more choice in OSes makes your hardware likely to be useful longer.

whoopdedo• 11 years ago

The other way to look at it is as technology improves so does energy efficiency. What is the cost saving of taking older more power-hungry hardware off the grid? Planned obsolescence encourages timely upgrading so end users can take advantage of recent innovations. Similar to how a rolling release delivers bug fixes more expediently than a code-rush major releases interspersed with occasional patches.

(I'm not saying definitively that one is better than the other, only offering both perspectives.)

conductor• 11 years ago

If this is about security and not control then I'm sure the hardware manufacturers can find a solution to provide secure hardware which can be modified if the owner wants to modify it. Like a physical switch on the motherboard: unlock the switch, copy there your public key, lock it. Now install whatever you want if it's signed with your key.

anon4• 11 years ago

If it's to be really secure, how about an RSA public/private key pair? Public key gets burned on the mobo, private key comes on a flash memory you store securely. BIOS has an option "disable secure mode" or whatever that requires you to physically insert a flash drive with the private key on it.

ericfontaine• 11 years ago

I'm not a fan of corporations "securing" my firmware by preventing me from installing my own custom version. Currenty, I use libreboot on my X60s and Macbook2,1 with GRUB in the firmware and configured to only boot kernels signed with my own personal key.

microcolonel• 11 years ago

I like the Acer Chromebook C720(P)'s solution to this.

By default, the firmware is locked, but there's a (warranty voiding if you're outside of the EU, which I don't mind) screw on the bottom of the machine, which allows you to flash your own firmware.

This solves one of the problems(upgrading firmware when vendor support runs out). One of the things that would be nice to explore is creating "flashing keys" on first boot. Maybe put them on a password-protected USB key or cloud share that can be held on to until you want to upgrade or modify firmware.

Another solution might be the ability to take out that screw, load your own key, then reinsert the screw(tripping some sort of hardware fuse to lock it to that key, maybe).

I don't like the tone of this article, it downplays the importance of hobbyists, and presents a false dichotomy: firmware which can't be modified by the owner of the device, versus firmware that can be modified by anyone, including remote attackers.

We can have our cake and eat it too, we just need to stop giving up so early.

joe_the_user2• 11 years ago

This only secures the firmware in the bios, correct?

Is it not the case that these days, harddisks and who-knows-what-other-subsystem have their own firmware which can be upgraded and so infected, separately, right? Infected harddisk firmware being mode of attack described for the Equations Group as far as I can tell.

pgeorgi3• 11 years ago

And even though the article refers to Equation, Boot Guard doesn't protect from that either.

joe_the_user2• 11 years ago

I'm not a low-level expert and perhaps people can clear this up but this seems to only address the overall system bios. The "genius" of the Equations Group seems to be in infecting not this bios but hard disk's own, private flash-firmware [1]. If boot-guard affected this, it would be great. I mean, it seems like a machine with a compromised disk could be compromised even if the boot-image on it was pristine (or just "looked" pristine when polled at a certain point).

[1] http://www.networkworld.com/article/2885814/security0/has-eq...

The Tricky World of Securing Firmware

Related Stories