Intel's Core 2 CPUs shipped through April contain an unprecedented number of potentially serious security flaws, and the chip giant isn't releasing enough information to allow developers to assess or work around them, according to OpenBSD founder Theo de Raadt. De Raadt issued a blistering missive Wednesday on an OpenBSD listserv, writing: "These processors are buggy as hell, and some of these bugs don't just cause development/debugging problems, but will *ASSUREDLY* be exploitable from userland code."
"I don't think Intel has made a correct assessment of the impact that some of these flaws can have," he told CRN. "I think that some of them have really severe potential security impacts." De Raadt based his comments on both an "errata list" Intel published in May and results from his own testing of the OpenBSD operating system on Core 2 chips. He said that most of the errors were most likely to cause system crashes, but that some might be exploited to create sophisticated attacks. He did not claim to be aware of any specific attacks that rely on these flaws
View: The full story
News source: CRN
"I don't think Intel has made a correct assessment of the impact that some of these flaws can have," he told CRN. "I think that some of them have really severe potential security impacts." De Raadt based his comments on both an "errata list" Intel published in May and results from his own testing of the OpenBSD operating system on Core 2 chips. He said that most of the errors were most likely to cause system crashes, but that some might be exploited to create sophisticated attacks. He did not claim to be aware of any specific attacks that rely on these flaws
View: The full story News source: CRN
As far as im concerned the CPU is there to execute valid instructions as its given them, not to go checking every bit of code that passes though it to see if it produces a desirable result or not.
Security is more down to the software developers to write good code than down to the physical hardware of a pc In my opinion.
As far as im concerned the CPU is there to execute valid instructions as its given them, not to go checking every bit of code that passes though it to see if it produces a desirable result or not.
Security is more down to the software developers to write good code than down to the physical hardware of a pc In my opinion.
The actual problems really have nothing to do with security, there is instructions what when executed in certain ways return the wrong result... thats what he means by buys in the processor... they are not talking about putting security checks in the proc but fixing the processors processing bugs
A piece of software, refered to as a Task in the manuals, isn't allowed to do everything or execute any instruction.
Intel's manuals are perfectly clear on this. They are free for you to download (PDF) and read.
Download their manuals and have a look.
Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer’s Manual Volume 1 - Basic Architecture
Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer’s Manual Volume 2A - Instruction Set Reference A-M
Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer’s Manual Volume 2B - Instruction Set Reference N-Z
Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer’s Manual Volume 3A - System Programming Guide Part 1
Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer’s Manual Volume 3B - System Programming Guide Part 2
Start with volume 1 if you want to know what it's all about. It even explains logical bits, binary numbers and "endianess".
Then there are various other manuals, such as documentation changes, information on TLBs, optimization etc.
I'd like to know what Theo de Raadt was smoking when he concluded that a CPU can be a security flaw. What?? You mind explaining how that can be? Come on, if you're so sure of your claims, then show us some proof.
I'd like to know what Theo de Raadt was smoking when he concluded that a CPU can be a security flaw. What?? You mind explaining how that can be? Come on, if you're so sure of your claims, then show us some proof.
The fact that you don't know enough to understand how a cpu flaw can be a security hole does not mean it cant be right? Plus, I can see that the intel documentation and the protected mode has already been posted, might as well read it?
In short - the cpu works in protected mode (when windows is running) and processes have different level of access (ring 0-3). Applications runs on ring3, the windows - on ring0. This way an application that decides to play it bad can't alter the system. What if because of some cpu flaw an application in ring3 is granted access to ring0, the kernel, everything?
Haven't read the article and dont plan to, no idea what the errors is he talking about, but this is just fyi that such a stuff is possible.
Great insight.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.