I have studied computer architecture and hardware security at the graduate level—though I am far from an expert. That said, any student in the classroom could have laid out the theoretical weaknesses in a “data memory-dependent prefetcher”.
My gut says (based on my own experience having a conversation like this) the engineers knew there was a “information leak” but management did not take it seriously. It’s hard to convince someone without a cryptographic background why you need to {redesign/add a workaround/use a lower performance design} because of “leaks”. If you can’t demonstrate an attack they will assume the issue isn’t exploitable.
If you can’t demonstrate an attack they will assume the issue isn’t exploitable.
Absolutely. Theory doesn’t always equal reality. The security guys submitting CVE’s to pad their resumes should absolutely be required to submit a working exploit. If they can’t then they’re just making needless noise
There are definitely bullshit cves out there but I don’t think that’s a good general rule. Especially in this context where it’s literally unpatchable at the root of the problem.
The more probable answer is that the NSA asked for the backdoor to be left in. They do all the time, it’s public knowledge at this point. AMD and Intel chips have the requisite backdoors by design, and so does Apple. The Chinese and Russian designed chips using the same architecture models, do not. Hmmmm… They have other backdoors of course.
It’s all about security theatre for the public but decrypted data for large organizational consumption.
I don’t believe that explanation is more probable. If the NSA had the power to compell Apple to place a backdoor in their chip, it would probably be a proper backdoor. It wouldn’t be a side channel in the cache that is exploitable only in specific conditions.
The exploit page mentions that the Intel DMP is robust because it is more selective. So this is likely just a simple design error of making the system a little too trigger-happy.
Wow, what a dishearteningly predictable attack.
I have studied computer architecture and hardware security at the graduate level—though I am far from an expert. That said, any student in the classroom could have laid out the theoretical weaknesses in a “data memory-dependent prefetcher”.
My gut says (based on my own experience having a conversation like this) the engineers knew there was a “information leak” but management did not take it seriously. It’s hard to convince someone without a cryptographic background why you need to {redesign/add a workaround/use a lower performance design} because of “leaks”. If you can’t demonstrate an attack they will assume the issue isn’t exploitable.
So the attack is (very basically, if I understand correctly)
Setup:
Attack:
Is this somewhat correct? Those speculative execution vulnerabilities always make my brain hurt a little
Absolutely. Theory doesn’t always equal reality. The security guys submitting CVE’s to pad their resumes should absolutely be required to submit a working exploit. If they can’t then they’re just making needless noise
There are definitely bullshit cves out there but I don’t think that’s a good general rule. Especially in this context where it’s literally unpatchable at the root of the problem.
The more probable answer is that the NSA asked for the backdoor to be left in. They do all the time, it’s public knowledge at this point. AMD and Intel chips have the requisite backdoors by design, and so does Apple. The Chinese and Russian designed chips using the same architecture models, do not. Hmmmm… They have other backdoors of course.
It’s all about security theatre for the public but decrypted data for large organizational consumption.
I don’t believe that explanation is more probable. If the NSA had the power to compell Apple to place a backdoor in their chip, it would probably be a proper backdoor. It wouldn’t be a side channel in the cache that is exploitable only in specific conditions.
The exploit page mentions that the Intel DMP is robust because it is more selective. So this is likely just a simple design error of making the system a little too trigger-happy.