Kitz ADSL Broadband Information
adsl spacer  
Support this site
Home Broadband ISPs Tech Routers Wiki Forum
 
     
   Compare ISP   Rate your ISP
   Glossary   Glossary
 
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8

Author Topic: Serious vulnerability discovered in Intel processors  (Read 21285 times)

sevenlayermuddle

  • Helpful
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5369
Re: Serious vulnerability discovered in Intel processors
« Reply #30 on: January 04, 2018, 11:09:19 PM »

It’ll be interesting to see where people stand re legal rights, such as Sale of Goods Act.   I don’t see how anybody could deny this was a manufacturing defect so, if any device ceases to perform as expected, ie it runs a lot slower, and the seller is not able to fully restore performance, might there be a claim?

Perish the thought, but just as the PPI scam phone calls begin to subside, might there be a new version....  4 or 5 times a day... ring, ring.  Recorded voice:  “Is your computer running slower?  Did you know you may be entitled to a refund...?  Press 9 now, to  claim your refund. “::)

Logged

Bowdon

  • Content Team
  • Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2395
Re: Serious vulnerability discovered in Intel processors
« Reply #31 on: January 04, 2018, 11:10:47 PM »

https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/27150

Check that link out. It's a program that will tell you if your intel cpu is vulnerable. According to that my i7-7700K is vulnerable. Yet my old i5 2500K isn't vulnerable!

This is the video link I got it from, Britec: Your Intel CPU Could Become Up to 30% Slower
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fKXQIEO67s
Logged
BT Full Fibre 500 - Smart Hub 2

burakkucat

  • Respected
  • Senior Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 38300
  • Over the Rainbow Bridge
    • The ELRepo Project
Re: Serious vulnerability discovered in Intel processors
« Reply #32 on: January 04, 2018, 11:29:42 PM »

A couple of papers, for those who would like some easy bed-time reading --

https://gruss.cc/files/kaiser.pdf
https://meltdownattack.com/meltdown.pdf
Logged
:cat:  100% Linux and, previously, Unix. Co-founder of the ELRepo Project.

Please consider making a donation to support the running of this site.

sevenlayermuddle

  • Helpful
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5369
Re: Serious vulnerability discovered in Intel processors
« Reply #33 on: January 04, 2018, 11:49:49 PM »

https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/27150

Check that link out. It's a program that will tell you if your intel cpu is vulnerable. According to that my i7-7700K is vulnerable. Yet my old i5 2500K isn't vulnerable!

I’m not entirely convinced that tool relates to the topic of this thread.  A genuine tool, for this or a different problem, or just a deliberate Intel smokescreen, who knows?   It seems to predate by a few weeks, wheras NDAs were obviously in place regarding the real issue.   They certainly would have known the story was going to break this week, plenty of time to plan in advance distraction in tactics.   

Happy to be proven wrong, above is more hunch than anything else.
Logged

Weaver

  • Senior Kitizen
  • ******
  • Posts: 11459
  • Retd s/w dev; A&A; 4x7km ADSL2 lines; Firebrick
Re: Serious vulnerability discovered in Intel processors
« Reply #34 on: January 05, 2018, 05:19:36 AM »

We are going to have to move to a world where only non-malicious software is allowed into our boxes. This isn't a problem for most people because they don't have any apps that are trying to thieve information from places they shouldn't be trying to access. The costs of “security” amounting to paranoia should not be allowed to wreck performance for the 99.9999% normal case. It's going to be far cheaper to simply forbid evil code from coming into your system.

So how to do this? Microsoft has done a lot of research on this over recent years. Security by proving that code isn't evil. This can be expensive but only has to be done once done processors are getting faster and more numerous, and the latter property could be used to attack the problem of correctness-checking code by dividing up some of the workload across multiple cpus. In many cases though, correctness checking isn't even needed as you just get your apps signed from a  trusted source. If you correctness check them, you can sign them as checked afterwards.

This still means that interpreters / jit compilers that can take in arbitrary code must be treated with special handling. But signature+origin checking or correctness checking will still do fine for these cases, just moved up a level to the code you're importing and interpreting. (eg the Spectre + javascript compiled to machine code example.)

This good-code-only world is like ios, a tyranny. That's why I use ios now, despite it being incredibly annoying and unnecessarily crippled in every respect due to the confusions created by mobile phone assumptions which make no sense on ipads.

In the 1970s and early 1980s you simply didn't have evil apps running on your mainframes of VMS boxes and iirc some manufacturers would possibly check software products for you so that you could be confident that new software wouldn't ruin your life.

I have never run any antivirus on my customers' windows boxen because there was absolutely no need. I just made absolutely sure that there was no code on the box that shouldn't be there and no mechanisms at all for importing executables or interpreted code. This was done using low-privilege plus SRP and a load of other specially designed group policy restrictions, and email scanned server-side, the sum of which meaning that users could not import code from removable disks and run it, run it after a download or receive it in email. SRP meant that only code installed intentionally by a highly trusted expert admin could be run at all. Users were not allowed to create folders in arbitrary locations, and no unpapproved directories that we're children of the root could be created. Any children of root directories that shouldn't be there were just deleted automatically, in case installation programs created them using privilege. And any exe or dll files in the wrong place were similarly burned automatically (either deleted or renamed with a safe extension so they could be examined) - this was to prevent users from spreading evil, or needed to protect them as they couldn't run such things anyway, because of SRP and ACLs.

So no crashing due to bugs in resident antivirus nor the associated gruesome slowness. And no waiting for the antivirus to simply fail anyway or be disabled by evildoers. Every infected machine I ever saw (non-customers of course) had antivirus on it.

I did still use antivirus software for _scanning_ unknown files bug only as part of audits to make sure that things were as they were supposed to be. I have no problem with scanning tools as long as you don't rely on them because they aren't resident and interfering with the o/s and apps and making the machine ill and slow.

I never had any kind of security incident on any of my customers machines, despite best efforts by users. Users were never allowed to be admins under any circumstances and that was that.

I found the walled garden approach very very effective, full performance and zero crashes and stuff running as Microsoft tested it, not perverted with alien av code making it ill and introducing breakage of assumptions.

Apologies for the length and pomposity + self-promotion of this rant. I feel better now. Nurse, my pills?
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 05:25:31 AM by Weaver »
Logged

Chrysalis

  • Content Team
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 7390
  • VM Gig1 - AAISP L2TP
Re: Serious vulnerability discovered in Intel processors
« Reply #35 on: January 05, 2018, 07:56:08 AM »

Weaver I agree but the core windows design is oblivious to that.

You have 3 wrappers on the windows OS as an example

rundll32
svchost
runonce

Malware can choose to access the internet via say rundll32 and bypass whitelist mitigations.  This flaw has stayed in place from windows 95 to today I assume for backward compatibility reasons. Its very old legacy vulnerable code, to show how old it is, Microsoft still have to keep MS-DOS 8.3 filename support enabled on C: by default because rundll32 needs it.

Microsoft windows has an excellent whitelisting tool built in called applocker, its absolutely amazing.  But only works on enterprise versions of windows as microsoft consider it a "corporate" feature.  It was also enabled in windows 7 ultimate, but there is no ultimate for win8 and win10.  SRP does the same (remember cryptolocker which uses it?) but SRP is no longer supported by microsoft, has some unresolved bugs and is less user friendlly to use.  Applocker has a wizard which will scan your app directories and auto whitelist whats there.

I personally use all of the following, I currently have no a/v installed as I consider that very obsolete and ineffective practice.  Although a/v that scans emails I still consider useful so it may get reinstalled at some point (my laptop still has a/v on top of what I list here).

Registry tweaks that do the following.

Disable SMBv1
Disable NTFS encryption (anti ransomware)
Disable powershell, vb scripts etc.
Prevent dll's from non system folders overiding system dll's.
DEP default on for 32bit processes (stock is default off, DEP is enforced on all 64bit processes regardless, so yes 64bit browsers are natively more secure than 32bit browsers)
ASLR, SEHOP enabled.

Also

Secure boot enabled
Anti exploit software currently I use hitman pro alert for this.
SRP whitelisted binaries policy as well as whitelised dll's this took a fair amount of time to configure, but it makes things very difficult for attackers.
Filter outbound traffic (windows default is to allow all silently).
My network via pfsense blocks traffic to known malware control ip's, compromised domains etc.
My network via pfsense enforces DNS queries via trusted DNS servers.

Whitelisting of binaries, dlls is clearly the way forward, but the industry will resist it as the security software market is huge, if the OS becomes secure, then the likes of ESET and kaspersky go out of business.

Even with whitelisting memory exploiting is becoming a bigger issue with every passing year, thats what exploit protection is for, the likes of DEP etc. are designed to mitigate the risk.  These cpu exploits fall into this category.

Windows 10 has made some strides, Windows Defender (or whatever its called now), now implements exploit protection (based on what is in EMET), but has no proper whitelisting, which microsoft still see as a corporate only feature.

HIPS aiso an effective form of security (behaviour blocking), this is similar to what selinux does in linux.  Currently windows has no native HIPS.
Logged

Weaver

  • Senior Kitizen
  • ******
  • Posts: 11459
  • Retd s/w dev; A&A; 4x7km ADSL2 lines; Firebrick
Re: Serious vulnerability discovered in Intel processors
« Reply #36 on: January 05, 2018, 08:20:47 AM »

@Chrysalis - I had all my customers on Ultimate or Business products or whatever they were called that or the corporate SA releases, but Ultimate especially for home use as home environment is even more evil with working parents who used to let their kids have their own logins on the same box.

I'm so out of date now, after I retired when I was administering Windows 7 boxes, I hated Windows 8 so very much that I completely gave up on MS products and went Apple for my own use. I've never even seen Windows 10 for instance.
Logged

Chrysalis

  • Content Team
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 7390
  • VM Gig1 - AAISP L2TP
Re: Serious vulnerability discovered in Intel processors
« Reply #37 on: January 05, 2018, 08:43:54 AM »

Weaver I moved to win 8 as there is now fixes or workarounds for most of the issues that made people hate it and there is some important enhancements.

Windows 10 also has enhancements, but the behaviour of the OS is horrific, with all the telemetry, enforced updates, settings been lost after updates and so on.  I just consider it nowhere near suitable for my main PC or laptop. With this OS microsoft have resorted to treating their end users like toddlers.

If it wasnt for gaming I would probably be using linux now.
Logged

sevenlayermuddle

  • Helpful
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5369
Re: Serious vulnerability discovered in Intel processors
« Reply #38 on: January 05, 2018, 09:19:00 AM »

Seems to be confirmed that Apple released the mitigations ahead of time.

Apple update
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208394

As far as I can see, 10.13.2 (& equivalents for earlier OS versions) for macOS was released at start of December affecting various listed issues.  The  release notes were updated this week to also mention these vulnerabilities.  I guess that allowed them jump the gun with the fixes, without breaking the NDA that was obviously in place.

About 10.13.2
https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT208331

I do not remember hearing any reports of performance problems with 10.13.2, which is encouraging. 

Since late November I have occupied myself evaluating, and playing with, different photo processing software which is often highly CPU intensive.   Slow enough to be slightly annoying even on my spanking new iMac.   I did not notice any step change in speed.
Logged

broadstairs

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3700
Re: Serious vulnerability discovered in Intel processors
« Reply #39 on: January 05, 2018, 10:17:23 AM »

Interestingly I just read a post elsewhere which suggested that there was general agreement to disclose these issues on the 9th January 2018, however Linux jumped the gun and made it public earlier which seems to have led to this flurry of information. If true maybe they did not do an NDA on Linux?

Stuart
Logged
ISP:Vodafone Router:Vodafone Wi-Fi hub FTTP

sevenlayermuddle

  • Helpful
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5369
Re: Serious vulnerability discovered in Intel processors
« Reply #40 on: January 05, 2018, 11:13:08 AM »

Interestingly I just read a post elsewhere which suggested that there was general agreement to disclose these issues on the 9th January 2018, however Linux jumped the gun and made it public earlier which seems to have led to this flurry of information. If true maybe they did not do an NDA on Linux?

Stuart

I’d be surprised if the Linux community had been allowed access unless any NDAs imposed on other players could also be applied to Linux.   I am maybe less sure how an NDA could be enforced however in the world of Linux, but that might just be my lack of understanding.

Here is a write up does suggest it was not due to be publicised until 9 Jan.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/meltdown-spectre-exploits-intel-amd-arm-nvidia,news-57627.html

As far as I can see it seems to have been first published in The Register, which also seems to be source of the, perhaps exagerated, claim of a 30% performance hit.  The Register also seems to be the origin of the, possibly unfair, singular focus on Intel.   

I wonder then, did somebody deliberately spill the beans, or some of them, prematurely to The Register?  And if so who, and with what motive?



Logged

Bowdon

  • Content Team
  • Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2395
Re: Serious vulnerability discovered in Intel processors
« Reply #41 on: January 05, 2018, 11:51:21 AM »

Apparently you won't get the patch from microsoft unless your anti virus program as issued a certain registration key. MS have a list of compliant AV's.

I'm using avast and so far they claim its compatable. But some people are having problems getting the update from them (others are getting the update but still not got the patch from windows updater). I think the problem from Avast is they are pushing the update out as a micro-update, so some peoples program isnt updating properly.
Logged
BT Full Fibre 500 - Smart Hub 2

watcher

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 748
Re: Serious vulnerability discovered in Intel processors
« Reply #42 on: January 05, 2018, 12:00:32 PM »

I’m not entirely convinced that tool relates to the topic of this thread.
Correct, this tool relates to a completely different issue which is a vulnerability in Intel's Management Engine (IME) software. Typically it is the later versions which have the issue which is why older CPU setups may pass and more recent ones may fail. This is the Intel link which explains the potential problem and what to do about it. In Windows it is easy to check if IME is installed, and if so what version through Control Panel->Progams and Features->Intel Management Engine Components.

I have incidentally received the patch for Windows 10 64 as an update entitled January 3, 2018—KB4056892 (OS Build 16299.192).
« Last Edit: January 05, 2018, 12:03:43 PM by watcher »
Logged

highpriest

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 285
Re: Serious vulnerability discovered in Intel processors
« Reply #43 on: January 05, 2018, 12:10:40 PM »

I’d be surprised if the Linux community had been allowed access unless any NDAs imposed on other players could also be applied to Linux.   I am maybe less sure how an NDA could be enforced however in the world of Linux, but that might just be my lack of understanding.

It was not an NDA in the true sense; it was an embargo which allowed vendors enough time to come up with the necessary mitigation.

Someone told me that *BSD devs cannot be held to NDAs and the like (due to the way it is licensed) which is why they were one of the last to know about this.

https://www.freebsd.org/news/newsflash.html#event20180104:01 (from: https://github.com/hannob/meltdownspectre-patches)

It's possible that the likes of Google, MS, Apple, Citrix and the like have known about this for many months.

The really weird thing is that Theo de Raadt pointed this out over 10 years ago!

https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118296441702631&w=2
Logged
Zen | Zyxel VMG8324-B10A (with RFC4638 patch) | EdgeRouter PoE | UniFi AP AC Pro + Lite

kitz

  • Administrator
  • Senior Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 33884
  • Trinity: Most guys do.
    • http://www.kitz.co.uk
Re: Serious vulnerability discovered in Intel processors
« Reply #44 on: January 05, 2018, 01:28:19 PM »

It does appear that there is a lot of hype about this and many rumours, Ive been trying to do a bit of digging.

Reliable information can be found from spectreattack.com.  Anything on there is practically straight from the horses mouth.   From there there's several [official] white papers by academics & universities etc.

From what I can gather there are two main vulnerabilities - both of which use side channels to obtain information from the accessed memory location.
  • Meltdown.  Seems to affect only certain Intel CPU's
  • Spectre.   Affects practically every system Intel, AMD and ARM.


  • Both vulnerabilities have been there for years (10+).
  • Both vulnerabilities have only recently been discovered.  Cant find a time frame but indications are a number of months. The white papers are undated
  • Spectre appears to be particularly problematic and not so easy to fix.
  • It is true that the likes of Intel, AMD, ARM and many other academics have been working on a fix under some sort of NDA/embargo
  • Certain organisations such as Microsoft, Apple, Google & various Linux bods were informed and also working to find a solution

It would appear that someone leaked and The Register published early.   Whether they should have or not is up for debate, because this seems to have caused a panic situation before an official announcement.
TBH I don't think they should have.  Yes its given then a lot of publicity, but apparently they are also the source of the unsubstantiated 30% decrease in performance and further panic.

Christ-on-a-bike.  This type of incident is one of the few where it is not in the public's best interest to release information when a fix is supposedly being investigated. This has been bubbling under the surface for circa 10yrs, but now its public knowledge of course certain sectors will try exploit it... and hence why the main operating systems are pushing out their own updates ahead of time.   In reality this really needs fixing at the hardware layer.. not the O/S.


So perhaps not quite as sinister as first appears.  Yes there may have been some smoke-screening..  but Intel are not wrong when they said they have been working with AMD etc etc because Spectre does affect those other processors too.   


Logged
Please do not PM me with queries for broadband help as I may not be able to respond.
-----
How to get your router line stats :: ADSL Exchange Checker
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8