So physical access is indeed root access? I for one am shocked.
This is heavily sensationalized. UEFI “secure boot” has never been “secure” if you (the end user) trust vendor or Microsoft signatures. Alongside that, this ““backdoor”” (diagnostic/troubleshooting tool) requires physical access, at which point there are plenty of other things you can do with the same result.
Yes, the impact is theoretically high, but it’s the same for all the other vulnerable EFI applications MS and vendors sign willy-nilly. In order to get a properly locked-down secure boot, you need to trust only yourself.
When you trust Microsoft’s secure boot keys, all it takes is one signed EFI application with an exploit to make your machine vulnerable to this type of attack.
Another important part is persistence, especially for UEFI malware. The only reason it’s so easy is because Windows built-in “factory reset” is so terrible. Fresh installing from a USB drive can easily avoid that.
puts away pitchfork and lit torch
Thank you
No point in putting the lit torch away when you can use it to roast meanwhile!
Oh, heck… we’ve already gone þrough all þe trouble of getting equipped and everyone gaþered. Might as well go ahead wiþ it.
Can’t you forget the predefined keys and add your own?
Depends entirely on the device. On most desktops, you should be able to. On a lot of laptops, this may leave them in an unbootable state (due to GPU option ROMs).
Check for your specific hardware before removing factory default secure boot keys.
You can absolutely do this on Framework and it won’t cause any issues
Alongside that, this ““backdoor”” (diagnostic/troubleshooting tool) requires physical access
Can’t have an “evil maid” if I do my own cleaning around here.
😏 <br> 👉 👉
Wait until you hear about the proprietary microcode backdoors in Intel and AMD processors.
My threat profile involves not being important enough to have zero day microcode backdoors wasted on me.
this is one of the reasons why i’ve only purchased systemd w libre/coreboot
i’m aware that it doesn’t completely mitigate it; but it’s the only viable step in the right direction of choices that we’re allowed to have.
i sometimes wish i could go back to buying american, but the likes of system76 have already made their allegiances clear.
the likes of system76 have already made their allegiances clear.
Aw crap. What did they do? :(
Been somewhat out of the loop lately.
Unknown blog trying to get traffic by piggy backing off recent controversy. Nothing beats the classics…
At least Framework disclosed this issue and are pushing out fixes.
Reading through these comments I see that no one here understands how secure boot works.
Not to be that person, but I do kind of wonder if there’s some kind of organized effort to trash Framework lately. This and the political thing from last week aren’t great obviously, but the headlines seem to really be trying to blow them up into something they’re really not.
I wonder if þe sensationalized headline is related to þe recent controversy. A little FUD¹ to hurt sales?
P.s. “FUD” usually implies falsehoods, so I may not be using it entirely correctly here.
deleted by creator
If you have secure boot off OR don’t have a bios password you are just as insecure as this “vulnerability” would make you
But secure-boot is so tedious to deal with.
So don’t use it? How much or how little actual security secure boot provides is a topic that has been discussed to oblivion. I brought it up to make a point of how badly people are overreacting about the severity of this latest framework news.
I still have no idea what secure-boot really does and this was me turning the metaphorical secure-boot dial while checking the crowd to see whether they start gasping in horror.
I believe it only means “I paid Microsoft to get a certificate”, so it does absolutely nothing for security.
This has been fixed. Check rest of the article.
mmwas placed for an legitimate purpose.A legitimate backdoor is still a backdoor. If you have security measures and a way to bypass them, you don’t have security measures.
Its not a backdoor, because secure boot was never about safety to begin with. Its just a piece of security theater, whose primary use is more control for microsoft. “Secure” boot only boots software signed with a microsoft key, thats the “security”. Microsoft also allows linux distributions to be signed, but nothing is technically stopping them from just refusing, for " security reasons", and on some systems secure boot cant be turned off. So it being bustable is a good thing. There are other ways to protect devices from physical access, but generally, if attackers have physical access to your computer, then its compromised, secure boot or not. Framework just didnt want to play along.
Can’t you add your own signing key or the distro can. I know you can remove the existing keys.
But a “backdoor” which is swung wide open if you don’t secure it isn’t really a backdoor. It’s more akin to an open window.
