this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2024
508 points (95.7% liked)

Selfhosted

39877 readers
367 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Here we are - 3600 which was still under manufacture 2-3 years ago are not get patched. Shame on you AMD, if it is true.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] blackstrat@lemmy.fwgx.uk 79 points 2 months ago (8 children)

Attackers need to access the system kernel to exploit the Sinkclose vulnerability, so the system would have to already be compromised. The hack itself is a sophisticated vector that is usually only used by state-sponsored hackers, so most casual users should take that into account.

So it's a vulnerability that requires you to.already have been compromised. Hardly seems like news.

I can understand AMD only patching server chips that by definition will be under greater threat. On the other hand it's probably not worth the bad publicity not to fix more.

[–] atiredittechnician@lemmy.world 28 points 2 months ago (3 children)

The reason that this is news is because it allows malware to embed itself into the processor microcode once kernel is breached. IE: If it is exploited for compromise, you either have to have the knowledge and hardware to reset the processor microcode manually (Requires an SPI flash tool) or you toss the hardware entirely. There's no just 'blow the drive away and reinstall the OS' solution available.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This sounds weird. I was in the impression that operating systems load updated cpu microcode at every boot, because it does not survive a power cycle, and because the one embedded in the BIOS/UEFI firmware is very often outdated. But then how exactly can a virus persist itself for practically forever?

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 months ago

The OS can't get to the point of loading cpu microcode without that outdated, embedded microcode. The reason it can persist is because there aren't a lot of good ways to see what that UEFI microcode actually is once it's installed. Plus, only the UEFI tells you that it has successfully updated itself. There is no other more authoritative system to verify that against. So the virus could just lie and say it's gone and you would never know. Hence needing to treat it as the worst case scenario, that it never leaves.

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 months ago

And that introduces a specific type of supply chain threat: someone who possesses a computer can infect their own computer, sell it or transfer it to the target, and then use the embedded microcode against the target, even if the target completely reformats and reinstalls a new OS from scratch.

That's not going to affect most people, but for certain types of high value targets they now need to make sure that the hardware they buy hasn't already been infected in the supply chain.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

I don’t think it gets to the microcode but the UEFI.

load more comments (4 replies)