Skip to content
  • Hjem
  • Seneste
  • Etiketter
  • Populære
  • Verden
  • Bruger
  • Grupper
Temaer
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Kollaps
FARVEL BIG TECH
  1. Forside
  2. Ikke-kategoriseret
  3. A friend, @chloetankahhui has been speaking up against the proposal to enforce age verification at the OS level, and the QRTs to this shows the extent of naivety that a lot of people have.

A friend, @chloetankahhui has been speaking up against the proposal to enforce age verification at the OS level, and the QRTs to this shows the extent of naivety that a lot of people have.

Planlagt Fastgjort Låst Flyttet Ikke-kategoriseret
14 Indlæg 4 Posters 23 Visninger
  • Ældste til nyeste
  • Nyeste til ældste
  • Most Votes
Svar
  • Svar som emne
Login for at svare
Denne tråd er blevet slettet. Kun brugere med emne behandlings privilegier kan se den.
  • sleepyowl@chaos.socialS sleepyowl@chaos.social

    A friend, @chloetankahhui has been speaking up against the proposal to enforce age verification at the OS level, and the QRTs to this shows the extent of naivety that a lot of people have.

    No one who does hardware security believes that any system is bulletproof, but do you really think that circumventing these things will always be a simple firmware mod or hardware hack?

    Let's dive in. /1

    sleepyowl@chaos.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
    sleepyowl@chaos.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
    sleepyowl@chaos.social
    wrote sidst redigeret af
    #2

    Since the late 2000s, computer chipsets have shipped with security processors like Intel Management Engine and AMD Platform Security Processor.

    Part of their job is to verify that the UEFI firmware is from the computer OEM and has not been tampered with or comes from a 3rd party. /2

    sleepyowl@chaos.socialS dnmns@mastodon.scotD 2 Replies Last reply
    0
    • sleepyowl@chaos.socialS sleepyowl@chaos.social

      Since the late 2000s, computer chipsets have shipped with security processors like Intel Management Engine and AMD Platform Security Processor.

      Part of their job is to verify that the UEFI firmware is from the computer OEM and has not been tampered with or comes from a 3rd party. /2

      sleepyowl@chaos.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
      sleepyowl@chaos.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
      sleepyowl@chaos.social
      wrote sidst redigeret af
      #3

      How do these security processors verify the firmware integrity?

      Through a set of cryptographic keys and their hashes, which are used to verify the cryptographic signature of the UEFI firmware. These keys or hashes are *burned* into the processor and cannot be changed. /3

      sleepyowl@chaos.socialS 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • sleepyowl@chaos.socialS sleepyowl@chaos.social

        How do these security processors verify the firmware integrity?

        Through a set of cryptographic keys and their hashes, which are used to verify the cryptographic signature of the UEFI firmware. These keys or hashes are *burned* into the processor and cannot be changed. /3

        sleepyowl@chaos.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
        sleepyowl@chaos.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
        sleepyowl@chaos.social
        wrote sidst redigeret af
        #4

        For now, these functions are not strictly enforced or turned on in a lot of consumer devices.

        But is there anything stopping nation states from forcing hardware manufacturers and OEMs to do so?

        What options do you have in such a case? /4

        sleepyowl@chaos.socialS 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • sleepyowl@chaos.socialS sleepyowl@chaos.social

          For now, these functions are not strictly enforced or turned on in a lot of consumer devices.

          But is there anything stopping nation states from forcing hardware manufacturers and OEMs to do so?

          What options do you have in such a case? /4

          sleepyowl@chaos.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
          sleepyowl@chaos.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
          sleepyowl@chaos.social
          wrote sidst redigeret af
          #5

          There have been vulnerabilities in ME and PSP, and there MAY BE a way for users to bypass these checks.

          But this assumes:
          - Someone out there will put in labor to circumvent these things and release it freely, even at great expense.
          - A simple, user doable hack even exists.

          /5

          sleepyowl@chaos.socialS 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • sleepyowl@chaos.socialS sleepyowl@chaos.social

            There have been vulnerabilities in ME and PSP, and there MAY BE a way for users to bypass these checks.

            But this assumes:
            - Someone out there will put in labor to circumvent these things and release it freely, even at great expense.
            - A simple, user doable hack even exists.

            /5

            sleepyowl@chaos.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
            sleepyowl@chaos.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
            sleepyowl@chaos.social
            wrote sidst redigeret af
            #6

            Again, no one assumes that any system can be made 100% bulletproof. But that was never the point is it?

            The end game is for manufacturers to harden their devices against cheaper tools and raise the barrier to entry such that it costs a fortune for hackers who might even try. /6

            sleepyowl@chaos.socialS 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • sleepyowl@chaos.socialS sleepyowl@chaos.social

              Again, no one assumes that any system can be made 100% bulletproof. But that was never the point is it?

              The end game is for manufacturers to harden their devices against cheaper tools and raise the barrier to entry such that it costs a fortune for hackers who might even try. /6

              sleepyowl@chaos.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
              sleepyowl@chaos.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
              sleepyowl@chaos.social
              wrote sidst redigeret af
              #7

              This is why GiovanH's blog article is a must-read.

              People assume that accessible hacks of invasive systems will always exist, and users hacking their devices is to be expected.

              THIS SHOULDN'T BE A NORM. THIS IS AN ARMS RACE AND WE'RE OUTMATCHED. /7

              https://blog.giovanh.com/blog/2025/10/14/a-hack-is-not-enough/

              sleepyowl@chaos.socialS 1 Reply Last reply
              1
              0
              • sleepyowl@chaos.socialS sleepyowl@chaos.social

                This is why GiovanH's blog article is a must-read.

                People assume that accessible hacks of invasive systems will always exist, and users hacking their devices is to be expected.

                THIS SHOULDN'T BE A NORM. THIS IS AN ARMS RACE AND WE'RE OUTMATCHED. /7

                https://blog.giovanh.com/blog/2025/10/14/a-hack-is-not-enough/

                sleepyowl@chaos.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                sleepyowl@chaos.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                sleepyowl@chaos.social
                wrote sidst redigeret af
                #8

                People who think "oh we'll just buy Chinese motherboards and chips" or "just use open source hardware"

                WHO FABRICATES THE BOARDS AND CHIPS FOR OSHW? DO YOU BELIEVE STATES LIKE CHINA AREN'T INTERESTED IN SIMILAR MEASURES OF CONTROL?

                This is the tech equivalent of tankie-ism.

                /8

                sleepyowl@chaos.socialS 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • sleepyowl@chaos.socialS sleepyowl@chaos.social

                  People who think "oh we'll just buy Chinese motherboards and chips" or "just use open source hardware"

                  WHO FABRICATES THE BOARDS AND CHIPS FOR OSHW? DO YOU BELIEVE STATES LIKE CHINA AREN'T INTERESTED IN SIMILAR MEASURES OF CONTROL?

                  This is the tech equivalent of tankie-ism.

                  /8

                  sleepyowl@chaos.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                  sleepyowl@chaos.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                  sleepyowl@chaos.social
                  wrote sidst redigeret af
                  #9

                  Go on, circumvent these measures & keep our tech open and free.

                  But know that many hackers find basic hardware hacking tools too costly and out of reach. WE'RE OUTRESOURCED.

                  PUSH BACK BEFORE THESE POLICIES BECOME NORMALIZED. DON'T RELY ON HACKING ALONE TO SAVE US.

                  /END

                  valpackett@social.treehouse.systemsV 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • sleepyowl@chaos.socialS sleepyowl@chaos.social

                    Since the late 2000s, computer chipsets have shipped with security processors like Intel Management Engine and AMD Platform Security Processor.

                    Part of their job is to verify that the UEFI firmware is from the computer OEM and has not been tampered with or comes from a 3rd party. /2

                    dnmns@mastodon.scotD This user is from outside of this forum
                    dnmns@mastodon.scotD This user is from outside of this forum
                    dnmns@mastodon.scot
                    wrote sidst redigeret af
                    #10

                    @sleepyowl I’m eying up the ‘security updates’ for my bios with some suspicion.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • sleepyowl@chaos.socialS sleepyowl@chaos.social

                      Go on, circumvent these measures & keep our tech open and free.

                      But know that many hackers find basic hardware hacking tools too costly and out of reach. WE'RE OUTRESOURCED.

                      PUSH BACK BEFORE THESE POLICIES BECOME NORMALIZED. DON'T RELY ON HACKING ALONE TO SAVE US.

                      /END

                      valpackett@social.treehouse.systemsV This user is from outside of this forum
                      valpackett@social.treehouse.systemsV This user is from outside of this forum
                      valpackett@social.treehouse.systems
                      wrote sidst redigeret af
                      #11

                      @sleepyowl FWIW the current "contract" for what "a PC" even is (i.e. the requirements to get WHQL certified by MS) specifically defines that it must be possible to completely disable OS verification (UEFI Secure Boot) or use the user's own keys for it, out of the box without any extra requirements.

                      Firmware verification on every boot (Boot Guard et al) —which has already been widely enabled in Intel-based PC laptops of the last decade— did not change that, on its own.

                      Of course the policies are subject to change, but I think even Microsoft themselves would be really pissed about having to change any of this due to legal bullshit.

                      bunny@mk.absturztau.beB 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • valpackett@social.treehouse.systemsV valpackett@social.treehouse.systems

                        @sleepyowl FWIW the current "contract" for what "a PC" even is (i.e. the requirements to get WHQL certified by MS) specifically defines that it must be possible to completely disable OS verification (UEFI Secure Boot) or use the user's own keys for it, out of the box without any extra requirements.

                        Firmware verification on every boot (Boot Guard et al) —which has already been widely enabled in Intel-based PC laptops of the last decade— did not change that, on its own.

                        Of course the policies are subject to change, but I think even Microsoft themselves would be really pissed about having to change any of this due to legal bullshit.

                        bunny@mk.absturztau.beB This user is from outside of this forum
                        bunny@mk.absturztau.beB This user is from outside of this forum
                        bunny@mk.absturztau.be
                        wrote sidst redigeret af
                        #12

                        @valpackett@social.treehouse.systems @sleepyowl@chaos.social Originally it was intended to be locked down to only boot Windows, as were the first Windows Arm machines.

                        The reason you can run Linux on your PC at all today without hacks is previous rounds of pushback
                        ​​

                        valpackett@social.treehouse.systemsV 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • bunny@mk.absturztau.beB bunny@mk.absturztau.be

                          @valpackett@social.treehouse.systems @sleepyowl@chaos.social Originally it was intended to be locked down to only boot Windows, as were the first Windows Arm machines.

                          The reason you can run Linux on your PC at all today without hacks is previous rounds of pushback
                          ​​

                          valpackett@social.treehouse.systemsV This user is from outside of this forum
                          valpackett@social.treehouse.systemsV This user is from outside of this forum
                          valpackett@social.treehouse.systems
                          wrote sidst redigeret af
                          #13

                          @bunny pushback was definitely a part of it; also failure in the market. The 32-bit Windows RT devices were trying really hard to be iPads, but absolutely no one wanted just the walls with no garden inside.

                          bunny@mk.absturztau.beB 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • valpackett@social.treehouse.systemsV valpackett@social.treehouse.systems

                            @bunny pushback was definitely a part of it; also failure in the market. The 32-bit Windows RT devices were trying really hard to be iPads, but absolutely no one wanted just the walls with no garden inside.

                            bunny@mk.absturztau.beB This user is from outside of this forum
                            bunny@mk.absturztau.beB This user is from outside of this forum
                            bunny@mk.absturztau.be
                            wrote sidst redigeret af
                            #14

                            @valpackett@social.treehouse.systems At the time the secure boot was initially designed Windows was still going strong. They could get away with locking down all consumer PC hardware to run only Windows (or OS X for that other part), market-wise. Write off anyone not willing to run Windows as weird, suspicious, and potentially criminal. At least in the western PC market. Not sure how well it would go in China or India. Surprising amount of non-Apple consumer hardware was running Windows that was obtained with varying degrees of legitimacy back then ​​

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • jwcph@helvede.netJ jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
                            Svar
                            • Svar som emne
                            Login for at svare
                            • Ældste til nyeste
                            • Nyeste til ældste
                            • Most Votes


                            • Log ind

                            • Har du ikke en konto? Tilmeld

                            • Login or register to search.
                            Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                            Graciously hosted by data.coop
                            • First post
                              Last post
                            0
                            • Hjem
                            • Seneste
                            • Etiketter
                            • Populære
                            • Verden
                            • Bruger
                            • Grupper