[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)