[HN Gopher] What can we learn from leaked Insyde's BIOS for Inte...
___________________________________________________________________
What can we learn from leaked Insyde's BIOS for Intel Alder Lake
Author : hardenedvault
Score : 139 points
Date : 2022-10-08 15:00 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (hardenedvault.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (hardenedvault.net)
| userbinator wrote:
| I wonder why it seems to be mostly the new stuff that's getting
| leaked, and not the old out-of-support platforms that are long
| out of production, since the latter would be of value to BIOS-
| modders trying to add features and the like.
|
| I agree with the other comment here that this stuff should've
| been open-source in the first place, but more than that, I wish
| Intel would just release all the detailed documentation on their
| products. They used to be far better about that --- I believe you
| can still find reference schematics and such for Pentium II/III-
| era chipsets on their site, or in the Internet Archive thereof.
|
| The latter part of the article is more "open source bad"
| fearmongering, sadly common these days in that part of the
| software industry.
| [deleted]
| mgaunard wrote:
| I mostly learned that people make such intrusive ads nowadays
| that I won't be reading this article.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Could be using a mobile browser. Chrome's Google account
| integration makes it really annoying to switch.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| use firefox focus for casual link openining, firefox
| mobile+ublock for the rest.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Not always feasible, but pi hole makes all devices and
| software magically ad blocking. Just works!
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| why? what website works on chrome and fails on both
| firefox focus and firefox mobile + ublock origin? i have
| been using this setup since focus was introduced and it
| has worked 100% for me. there are bugs but what software
| doesnt so can you give me some concrete examples when
| this wouldn't?
| azinman2 wrote:
| I'm just providing an alternative. Not everyone wants to
| use Firefox, and many apps have use built in browsers for
| links like Reddit and TikTok.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| This page looks clean with Wipr on iOS. No empty ad cells
| or anything.
| gtirloni wrote:
| Wrong thread maybe? I'm on mobile and didn't see a single ad.
| changler wrote:
| Original thread announcing the leak:
| https://boards.4channel.org/g/thread/89060767
|
| Internet Archive link to .zip file snapshot of files from GitHub
| (but no git commit history):
| https://web.archive.org/web/20221007235925if_/https://codelo...
|
| Also mirrored here: https://git.tcp.direct/TheParmak/ICE_TEA_BIOS
|
| The git bundle for that mirror is also on the Internet Archive:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20221008155117if_/https://git.tc...
| (which can be restored via the instructions at https://git-
| scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Tools-Bundling)
|
| Note that downloading the git bundle (from the link on
| git.tcp.direct or its mirror on Internet Archive) is the most
| space-efficient download, as there are many large identical files
| in the repo that git deduplicates but the zip file format does
| not.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Thanks. Funny how stuff like this always gets leaked on chans.
| throwaway12245 wrote:
| Their lollygagging on "moderation" is a feature.
| cowtools wrote:
| well, each thread basically has a time limit before it gets
| archived and removed, so the users know to keep making
| threads if they want to keep their topic alive.
|
| So if someone comes and makes a DMCA claim on a thread, the
| moderators can just ignore it and wait for the thread to
| time out or they delete it and the users just make another
| thread.
|
| As long as the moderators wait a couple hours or so to
| respond to legal threats, and maintain a semblance of "low
| moderation" they pretty much have plausible deniability to
| void copyright. It's sort of genius.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| That security pledge from the insyde CTO is just the cherry on
| top of this. Especially since it was published back in February
| boreboot wrote:
| > Individuals or organizations that are not eligible to sign CNDA
| with Intel, such as open source firmware maintainers.
|
| Many of them do actually have CNDAs signed with Intel, at least
| those employed to work on commercial products based on Intel's
| chips. You'll see tons of references to NDA-only datasheet in
| coreboot's commit history.
| userbinator wrote:
| _You 'll see tons of references to NDA-only datasheet in
| coreboot's commit history._
|
| Isn't that really against the principles of open-source (and
| possibly the NDA itself)? It's a strange situation and why I'd
| rather manufacturers release datasheets instead of contributing
| to OSS. The source is technically "open" in the latter case,
| but in practice it's not much more informative than what you'd
| get if you just decompiled the binary.
| csdvrx wrote:
| It's a slightly biased analysis:
|
| > _Can open source firmware projects benefit from leaked
| content?_
|
| > _Unfortunately, no or rarely._
|
| > _Individuals or organizations that are not eligible to sign
| CNDA with Intel, such as open source firmware maintainers. Please
| note that open source firmware projects cannot directly benefit
| /reuse from leaked content due to legal risks_
|
| A direct reuse of everything is unlikely, but access to the
| material might lead to many interesting tools.
|
| Simple example: undervolting (to save battery and reduce heat)
| was taken away by intel because plundervolt allowed attacks
| against the SGX enclave.
|
| SGX has now been abandoned by Intel, but undervolting remains
| impossible.
|
| If I ever get an Alder Lake, would I look for a way to enable
| that on my laptop? Yes!
|
| Do I fear legal risks of altering the functionality of the
| hardware I purchased? No, thanks to the consequences of the first
| sale doctrine.
|
| > _Binary blobs: It's worth noting that in addition to the binary
| blobs required by various devices (Bluetooth BLE, WiFi, Ethernet,
| etc.), there are three different ACMs for security features:
| BiosGuard, BootGuard, and TXT_
|
| > _In addition, one thing should be noted that the key pairs
| required by BootGuard during provisioning stage is also included
| in the leaked content_
|
| So there's everything I would need to understand, patch then
| flash my own alterations? Great! I'm even more interested now!!
|
| > _the data center should prepare_
|
| > _Short-term plan:_
|
| > _Security team and patch management team should work together
| to ensure critical devices are upgraded to the latest version_
|
| And IMHO the individual interested in future attempts to reclaim
| full ownership of their hardware should prepare in a very
| different way, by:
|
| - downloading a copy of the current BIOS binary update (and the
| last few versions, just to be on the safe side)
|
| - blocking BIOS updates ("capsules" etc) in the BIOS
|
| - in the OS, uninstalling the tools that allow such updates (ex:
| Lenovo Vantage)
|
| - ideally, even switching to Linux, as Microsoft can package
| drivers updates with the BIOS, and if it's that big one of these
| drivers may include code from Intel using unusual ways to
| forcefully apply upgrades, that would bypass the methods you can
| control if the binary is delivered and run on your hardware (ex:
| Intel ME)
|
| I really like Windows, and "security" in general, but I like the
| idea of having features like Undervolt even more!
| amluto wrote:
| > SGX has now been abandoned by Intel, but undervolting remains
| impossible.
|
| SGX only really appears to be abandoned on client chips. SGX is
| a critical part of TDX, which is brand new.
| j-bos wrote:
| For someone with a passing curiosity, but limited time and
| skill atm. Where would we download the source code and previous
| updates?
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| It's insulting enough that Intel can "take away" features...
| And we can't even replace their code with our own.
| userbinator wrote:
| You mean security, not "security". The former is securing your
| own hardware against others, the latter is others securing the
| hardware against you. Unfortunately the corporates are more
| interested in promoting the latter than the former.
| djhope99 wrote:
| I don't know who leaked it but I'd say it was an Insyde job. ;)
| pferdone wrote:
| > I don't know who leaked it but I'd say it was an Insyde job.
| ;)
|
| This is something I expect on reddit. A supposedly funny
| comment with no real value at the top...
|
| edit: quoted the original comment
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Something something insensitive clod.
| DominoTree wrote:
| I'd suggest considering how much value the comment you just
| posted adds
| pferdone wrote:
| I couldn't hide my dislike for it and commented. Maybe it
| was unnecessary to draw comparisons to reddit and it'd be
| better to just state HN rules. I will try to consider this
| next time. Thank you.
| _zoltan_ wrote:
| You could have of course chosen not to comment.
| jpgvm wrote:
| If a chuckle isn't of value I don't know what is.
| pferdone wrote:
| You are right, it isn't of any value to me on HN.
| Additional information on the topic or a discussion with
| arguments is. Now you know what is.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| This is such as self-centered view. In reality, nobody
| really cares what is of value _to you_ on HN, and your
| values are certainly not indicative of every other person
| on this site, either.
|
| Speaking of HN rules, though, you may want to read up on
| them in the future:
|
| > Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning
| into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the
| hills.
| stirfish wrote:
| I'd argue that threads like this are why interesting
| leaks show up on 4chan first and not hacker news.
| bheadmaster wrote:
| _You goofy reddit kids, get off my lawHN!_
| belter wrote:
| It's allowed on weekends...casual HN day...
| gtirloni wrote:
| Thanks for adding value to this discussion. /s
| [deleted]
| somat wrote:
| It is unfortunate that this stuff is not open source in the first
| place.
|
| the pcengines apu2 is currently my preferred small system. one of
| the things I really like about it is that the firmware is open
| source. I will probably never need to build my own firmware, but
| I like knowing that I could.
|
| https://pcengines.github.io/
|
| Having said that, I think there is still a big ol black box of
| AMD secret sauce in there, sigh, so close yet still so far. why
| so secretive? what are you trying to hide?
| smoldesu wrote:
| It might not even be legal to ship motherboards with fully
| open-source firmware, especially if it has WiFi/Bluetooth baked
| in. Once you add anything related to networking in your stack,
| the chance of running FOSS firmware goes out the window. It's
| all very lock-and-key stuff, according to... _< squints at
| piece of paper>_ ...the United States Government.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Why? Because of FCC requirements around radio emissions?
| runnerup wrote:
| Yeah the firmware can control the gain/broadcast power and
| exceed FCC limits. It can be open source still, but
| modifying it and running the modified version would
| invalidate the FCC certification and running non certified
| transmitters is generally frowned upon, often illegal,
| depending on precise circumstances.
| AngryData wrote:
| And yet I can buy a Microtik router that just has
| dropdown boxes for selecting options that would get the
| FCC to bust down my door. I think it is far more likely
| that they just don't want to expose what would then be
| obvious security vulnerabilities and/or built-in
| backdoors.
| MrDOS wrote:
| Doesn't Mikrotik have US-specific part numbers that have
| hardware locks around particular RF features?
| RF_Savage wrote:
| Not even the running, but sale of. If it's too easy to
| modify then FCC will make it's sale illegal.
|
| Nobody wants that risk for their product.
| somat wrote:
| And yet I can buy an sdr 400mhz-6ghz no problem?
|
| sigh, whatever, things are never fair.
|
| I will say the thing that pisses me off about thinkpads
| is their use of a whitelist to limit radios. their
| justification for this was the same. "it's certified as a
| radio antenna pair, the fcc will not let us let you
| install whatever radio you want" which is bullshit.
| wildzzz wrote:
| The price of an SDR is usually much more than a basic
| WiFi card so that's kind of the justification for why an
| SDR doesn't require an FCC license since it's for
| experimental purposes and that you probably have a good
| reason to be using one. If you use one outside what you
| are licensed to do so, then expect the FCC to come down
| on you. The FCC license for consumer goods is a way for a
| manufacter to say that the product conforms to the
| applicable rules so that the FCC doesn't have to worry
| about every end-user fucking around with the spectrum.
| mmis1000 wrote:
| Actually linux distro package repo have the list and the
| way to compile and load into system for obvious reasons.
| (Otherwise how do they compile the wifi drivers for
| themselves?)
|
| But no one is even going to say how to actually do it
| publicly because it is illegal to do (and probably also
| unsafe to do).
| dylan604 wrote:
| Would there be any traction with a mobo that did not have any
| of that stuff built-in? There's a lot of advantages to no
| longer needing expansion cards for networking, so I seriously
| doubt anyone wants to go back to that. A laptop with a bunch
| USB dongles connected to a hub could be a doable solve to
| keep that gear off the mobo.
| p1necone wrote:
| Could you leave an empty socket for a wifi controller chip
| but still build in the antennas? Although that would likely
| lock you into whatever chip had the right pin out which
| seems a bit pointless.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Seems like this kind of radio chip would be standard pin
| out in 2022. Could you not just put one of those chips
| like Broadcom makes that has all the radio formats on it?
| Even sell it as a "kit" so that it comes with it but you
| have to install yourself to meet "regulations" or
| licensing terms. The first gen of Thunderbolt add-on came
| as PCIe due to some sort licensing issue instead of on
| the mobo directly
| yakak wrote:
| Tivoization features have to prevent you from running other
| code. Anyone relying on preventing the reading of source to
| avoid modifications is living on the knife's edge with
| regulators.
| russdill wrote:
| Apu2 is starting to get rather long in the tooth. Hope there is
| a refresh soon because it's a great little piece of hardware
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-08 23:00 UTC)