WikiLeaks' New Dump Shows How The CIA Allegedly Hacked Macs and iPhones Almost a Decade Ago (vice.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WikiLeaks' New Dump Shows How The CIA Allegedly Hacked Macs and iPhones Almost a Decade Ago (vice.com)

Posted by msmash on Thursday March 23, 2017 @04:00AM from the security-woes dept.

WikiLeaks said on Thursday morning it will release new documents it claims are from the Central Intelligence Agency which show the CIA had the capability to bug iPhones and Macs even if their operating systems have been deleted and replaced. From a report on Motherboard: "These documents explain the techniques used by CIA to gain 'persistenc'' on Apple Mac devices, including Macs and iPhones and demonstrate their use of EFI/UEFI and firmware malware," WikiLeaks stated in a press release. EFI and UEFI is the core firmware for Macs, the Mac equivalent to the Bios for PCs. By targeting the UEFI, hackers can compromise Macs and the infection persists even after the operating system is re-installed. The documents are mostly from last decade, except a couple that are dated 2012 and 2013. While the documents are somewhat dated at this point, they show how the CIA was perhaps ahead of the curve in finding new ways to hacking and compromising Macs, according to Pedro Vilaca, a security researcher who's been studying Apple computers for years. Judging from the documents, Vilaca told Motherboard in an online chat, it "looks like CIA were very early adopters of attacks on EFI."

52 of 113 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The more complex the easiest to hack by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-23 04:05 · Score: 2, Funny

Nothing like good old BIOS and hardware jumpers
1. Re:The more complex the easiest to hack by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-23 04:11 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Exactly the opposite. It used to be easy to hack your own computer. Now you need the resources of the CIA.
Apple Innovations! by guyniraxn · 2017-03-23 04:09 · Score: 1

So UEFI is now a Mac only thing, huh?
1. Re:Apple Innovations! by Carewolf · 2017-03-23 04:46 · Score: 2
  
  So UEFI is now a Mac only thing, huh?
  It was 10 years ago ;)
  Though as far as I know Apple uses EFI
The management unit in all intel processors by goombah99 · 2017-03-23 04:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

It seems to me that having a chip, the management unit, in all intel processors that sits above even a hypervisor and can read all memory, have it's own connection to the network, runs java code, and is software reprogrammable, is basically the wet dream of root kits. it's invisible to anything you run on the CPU but sees all and tells all.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
1. Re:The management unit in all intel processors by goombah99 · 2017-03-23 04:33 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  for a little background on the management engine:
  http://hackaday.com/2016/11/28...
  
  --
  Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
2. Re:The management unit in all intel processors by phantomfive · 2017-03-23 04:40 · Score: 2
  
  And it's been hacked, multiple times, actually.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
3. Re:The management unit in all intel processors by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-23 04:43 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Let's not forget the fact that Intel (Israel) and NSA (US) have collaborated to bury far far more insidious things inside the many BILLIONS of transistors of the CPU itself... we're talking full backdoor encrypted magic packet access, interaction with Windows NSA_KEY, heuristic triggers, the works. BILLIONS of transistors folks, BILLIONS, all inside a TOP SECRET CLOSED SOURCE die and company... think about that for just a minute folks.
  Opensource software is MEANINGLESS when you can't trust the platform.
  DEMAND OPEN SOURCE HARDWARE and FABS.
4. Re:The management unit in all intel processors by Megol · 2017-03-23 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Eh, no. UEFI implementations have been "hacked"* several times but AFAIK there is no instance of the security processor being tampered with.
  (* back in the days we used to assume that access to hardware == access to the computer, it's just that hardware/software makes that much harder to do than before)
5. Re:The management unit in all intel processors by phantomfive · 2017-03-23 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't really matter as long as you have control of the innermost ring of the CPU.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
6. Re:The management unit in all intel processors by ArmoredDragon · 2017-03-23 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  What are you talking about? It runs on its own separate processor. It's not even x86, it's ARC. The purpose is to allow you to troubleshoot a PC that merely powers on but is otherwise dead, up to and including a dead CPU.
7. Re:The management unit in all intel processors by phantomfive · 2017-03-23 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  The story talks about UEFI/EFI attacks, which allows access below the OS. I see your point though.
  Is there an API that allows you to talk to the ARC (or to reflash it)? How do people program it (surely not jtag; or rather, there must be some way in addition to jtag)?
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
8. Re:The management unit in all intel processors by Agripa · 2017-03-27 00:07 · Score: 1
  
  It would be an awful risk for Intel to knowingly or unknowingly take. Like a forced security certificate, the secret would only have to leak once and the evidence would be in non-volatile memory for inspection.
  More likely would be a compromise in Intel's hardware random number generator which leaves no evidence to be found but hey, why not both?
And now maybe we'll know why ... by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2017-03-23 04:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

And now maybee we'll know why it's been so hard for Open Source developers to get information on writing their own against-the-metal drivers for telephony radios and startup modules (BIOS, EFI/UEFI, etc.)
It has long been suspected that was not just proprietary info-walling, but to reduce chances of discovery of backdoors and persistent threats imposed in the name of spying.

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
1. Re:And now maybe we'll know why ... by Megol · 2017-03-23 05:44 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  It have also been long suspected that UN strives for world domination and have plans to take control of the US via military force, that aliens insert tracking chips into people and that the MIB goes around harassing people that "knows" this with silent black helicopters.
  IT'S. NOT. LOGICAL.
  Stop giving in to shitty conspiracy theories - there's no need for them. If there were secret backdoors inserted in hardware and software then we would know it, stopping such information from leaking via the engineers building the things would be impossible. Add to this the fact that many hardware designs are created and manufactured abroad or (not that unusual) as a co-operation between several teams in several countries. How could leaks be stopped unless all the governments in question work together and wipe the minds of the engineers after the designs are done? That's simply crazy!
  It is more likely that the companies doesn't want to release the data as:
  . they haven't documented it well enough.
  . they don't want to add extra work for documentation for external consumption.
  . they don't want to waste money on something that will not earn them extra money.
  . there are hacks and holes in the specification that they don't want others to see. (not backdoor holes - crappy code holes)
  . they don't want to have problems with people using the hardware out-of-spec, something that can lead to serious legal problems.
  . they don't want competitors to see how they solved some hardware, software or hardware-software problem. Trade secrets are a thing.
  . they don't want competitors to see that they use patented technology without license.
  Of course there may be _some_ hardware manufacturer that is forced (as it would be a liability for them) to insert backdoors from a goverment agency, hard to prove otherwise. But again that would be either an unusual exception for an unusual case as otherwise the reveal of such backdoors from a certain country will lead to quick and hard economical problems. E.g. a processor manufacturer may suddenly get no orders from abroad and other processor manufacturers will be suspected to also have backdoors. Do you realize the impact that could have?
2. Re:And now maybe we'll know why ... by sjames · 2017-03-23 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  We would know eventually, see TFS. The other reasons probably exist as well.
3. Re:And now maybe we'll know why ... by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-03-23 07:23 · Score: 2
  
  You evidently didn't know the entire source for UEFI is available. I have git cloned it and built and used it successfully. Of course, that doesn't tell you about the UEFI build running on your system, but it DOES allow you to roll your own.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
4. Re:And now maybe we'll know why ... by Agripa · 2017-03-27 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  And now maybee we'll know why it's been so hard for Open Source developers to get information on writing their own against-the-metal drivers for telephony radios and startup modules (BIOS, EFI/UEFI, etc.)
  It has long been suspected that was not just proprietary info-walling, but to reduce chances of discovery of backdoors and persistent threats imposed in the name of spying.
  Maybe but the backdoor only has to be discovered or leaked once. I doubt this would matter for telecommunication providers who have immunity anyway and are known to be jerks but it would be a big deal for Intel or AMD.
UFIA or EEFI? by goombah99 · 2017-03-23 04:20 · Score: 2

I've always transposed UEFI to UFIA in my mind. now I know why

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
So, it's not only the Russians that hack, huh! by bogaboga · 2017-03-23 04:22 · Score: 2

Prior to this, I'd have thought America and especially its government agencies do not hack.
I guess I was wrong. What troubles me is that the media only talked about the Russians, yet the act was taking place in our backyard!
Question: Will the media put both the left and right to task?
1. Re:So, it's not only the Russians that hack, huh! by Jeremi · 2017-03-23 04:26 · Score: 2
  
  Prior to this, I'd have thought America and especially its government agencies do not hack.
  Why would you have thought that? Spying has been going on since pretty much the dawn of time. It's what spy agencies do, and hacking computers is one way that they do it. Being surprised that the CIA does hacking is like being surprised that the Army shoots people.
  
  I guess I was wrong. What troubles me is that the media only talked about the Russians, yet the act was taking place in our backyard!
  What makes you think this spying was taking place in our backyard? The fact that the CIA was installing spyware doesn't mean that the CIA was installing spyware on the property of US citizens. (it doesn't mean they weren't, either -- but as a matter of law, they are not legally allowed to spy inside the US)
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
2. Re:So, it's not only the Russians that hack, huh! by king+neckbeard · 2017-03-23 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  >CIA
  >matter of law
  Choose one.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
3. Re:So, it's not only the Russians that hack, huh! by fustakrakich · 2017-03-23 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, well, when it comes to the CIA/DEA/FBI/etc it is pretty naive to believe they are bound by any 'laws'
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
4. Re: So, it's not only the Russians that hack, huh! by infolation · 2017-03-23 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Chromebooks (specifically the Asus c201) can be safer if the firmware has been replaced with Libreboot. The rest of the c201 hardware has open source drivers for Chrome OS. So, in theory, that would be the most up-to-date hardware capable of entirely running FOSS, including the firmware, without BLOBS.
  
  (no tails support though, argh)
5. Re:So, it's not only the Russians that hack, huh! by tinkerton · 2017-03-23 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  What makes you think this spying was taking place in our backyard? The fact that the CIA was installing spyware doesn't mean that the CIA was installing spyware on the property of US citizens. (it doesn't mean they weren't, either -- but as a matter of law, they are not legally allowed to spy inside the US)
  Ahem,I don't know about what they're installing on US home computers but where communication is concerned I know at least three ways around the legal limitations without the need to ask for a warrant and without doing anything illegal: they can target someone abroad with the express purpose to monitor a US resident who is in contact with that person abroad. They can ask the UK to monitor the US resident, and they can do some rerouting through foreign servers in order to label communication as foreign.
  And apart from that they are of course also doing things that are illegal but maybe in the future will no longer be so.
6. Re:So, it's not only the Russians that hack, huh! by Fire_Wraith · 2017-03-23 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  No one should be surprised that US Intelligence agencies hack. That's the very core of their job - spying!
  
  What made the Snowden leaks such a big deal was not that the U.S. was spying, but that there was bulk spying going on, grabbing everyone's information, including Americans. What these leaks accuse the CIA of doing is being able to spy on particular, specific targets, which is the way they're supposed to do it.
  
  Now, some people might think that this is bad because the CIA can hack computers we use, but that's an entirely different issue. Put another way, the CIA has guns that can kill me, yet absent any indication that they're going to use them on me/someone like me, or have in the recent past, it's not something I'm going to be worried about. Cops have guns, but I'm not worried about them having guns until/unless I see that my local police department is getting involved in a bunch of unjustified shootings of citizens - and even then, my worry isn't that they have them, but that they're misusing them. (And I'm not seeing evidence of that in these leaks, with these capabilities, yet)
7. Re:So, it's not only the Russians that hack, huh! by phantomfive · 2017-03-23 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Prior to this, I'd have thought America and especially its government agencies do not hack.
  The US has a long history of hacking spying. One of the recent complaints against the NSA is they keep exploits for their own use, instead of finding them and fixing them (thus they potentially leave everyone exposed).
  
  The Stuxnet attack was a difficult one to pull off because they had to go over an air-gap, and attack very expensive equipment (most of us don't have access to that equipment, and can't afford it).
  
  Snowden reported quite a bit of hacking. It's also known that the NSA was monitoring Angela Merkel's phone, presumably through hacking it.
  
  In a very cool hack, the US sent submarines to spy on Soviet underwater cables.
  
  I've read reports that the US had a corporate espionage program in the 80s and 90s, but I can't find any reference to it right now somehow.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
8. Re:So, it's not only the Russians that hack, huh! by chispito · 2017-03-23 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  Prior to this, I'd have thought America and especially its government agencies do not hack.
  I guess I was wrong. What troubles me is that the media only talked about the Russians, yet the act was taking place in our backyard!
  Question: Will the media put both the left and right to task?
  Newflash: Spies spy.
  
  --
  The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
9. Re:So, it's not only the Russians that hack, huh! by squiggleslash · 2017-03-23 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Just to be clear: you think the CIA doesn't spy on anyone with modern technologies, and you think this because the media didn't report it?
  First: Are you aware what the CIA is? Or the NSA?
  Second: Do you really read newspapers? I mean, there's this Manning person, and another guy called Snowden, who passed quite a bit of information to the newspapers during the last part of the last decade, and first part of this one, about how groups like the NSA work. Did you not read those articles?
  Look, I'd point you at some links, but why not just hop over to guardian.co.uk, and do a quick search. You'll find quite a bit of news you apparently missed.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
10. Re:So, it's not only the Russians that hack, huh! by AHuxley · 2017-03-23 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Re "The fact that the CIA was installing spyware doesn't mean that the CIA was installing spyware on the property of US citizens."
  "Files on Illegal Spying Show C.I.A. Skeletons From Cold War" (June 27, 2007)
  "...new details about how the Central Intelligence Agency illegally spied on Americans decades ago, including trying to bug a Las Vegas hotel room for evidence of infidelity and tracking down an expert lock-picker for a Watergate conspirator."
  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06...
  Operation CHAOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  ".. American domestic espionage project conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency from 1967 to 1974"
  Thats why the US got its United States President's Commission on CIA Activities within the United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  Inquiry by C.I.A. Affirms It Spied on Senate Panel (July 31, 2014)
  ".. officers penetrated a computer network used by the Senate Intelligence Committee in preparing its damning report on the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation program."
  https://www.nytimes.com/2014/0...
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
11. Re:So, it's not only the Russians that hack, huh! by Agripa · 2017-03-27 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  What makes you think this spying was taking place in our backyard? The fact that the CIA was installing spyware doesn't mean that the CIA was installing spyware on the property of US citizens. (it doesn't mean they weren't, either -- but as a matter of law, they are not legally allowed to spy inside the US)
  They were not suppose to be torturing people either but that did not stop them. So I guess it was legal. And I assume it is continuing. It was certainly been sanctioned with approval.
I thought that was only in servers by Viol8 · 2017-03-23 04:34 · Score: 1

For remote management of OS startup/shutdown and system monitoring and its effectively a small seperate computer. I don't think consumer machines have this installed. Unless I'm getting confused about what you're referring to.
1. Re:I thought that was only in servers by goombah99 · 2017-03-23 04:37 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  nope, it's in every core processor chipset.
  
  --
  Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
2. Re:I thought that was only in servers by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-03-23 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  The IME (Intel) and PSP (AMD) are on all modern systems, however they can be disabled in the UEFI configuration. Servers tend to have Out of Band network interfaces (NICs) to access them such that the controlling entity can be on a LAN that is separate from the internet connected one, but all modern systems have such capabilities (management engines.) You can go into your UEFI (falsely a.k.a. BIOS) setup and see the options to enable and disable it and it's features,.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
3. Re:I thought that was only in servers by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-03-23 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Or you could, you know, disable it in the UEFI config.
  
  --
  Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
4. Re:I thought that was only in servers by goombah99 · 2017-03-23 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  you can't disable it. if it doesn't run it shuts the chip down in 30 minutes.
  
  --
  Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
5. Re:I thought that was only in servers by goombah99 · 2017-03-23 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  what you said seems to be fully contradicted in everything I have read on this. People have been trying to years to turn this off. there were a couple of hacks discovered but now those dont work either.
  
  --
  Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
6. Re:I thought that was only in servers by Trogre · 2017-03-23 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  So... just route around Intel by buying AMD and you're good, right?
  
  --
  "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
To bad you can't get to the UEFI / BIOS menus on a by Joe_Dragon · 2017-03-23 04:47 · Score: 1

To bad you can't get to the UEFI / BIOS menus on a mac to be able to change boot keys.
Not exactly news by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-03-23 04:57 · Score: 1

This even made it into an episode of "Person of Interest" during its last season - although in that case I believe it was a criminal syndicate adding code to the EFI before the computers were shipped. Oh wait, I guess it was exactly the same after all!

--
#DeleteChrome
Physical access by MikeMo · 2017-03-23 05:47 · Score: 2

Note that both of these hacks require physical access.
1. Re:Physical access by AHuxley · 2017-03-23 09:54 · Score: 2
  
  That makes it better? The CIA has to distract a person to get to the phone? Or become their friend? Or watch their online shopping and alter it during shipping?.
  The physical access just avoids unexpected network sweeps, logs or code litter.
  No network access to the device to alter the device, no network access to remove captured data.
  Its more about tradecraft than any US domestic legal protection.
  Be aware of unexpected new friends, offers of friendship that seem too perfect. Its a distraction to get the device.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
2. Re:Physical access by cmseagle · 2017-03-23 23:29 · Score: 2
  
  That makes it better?
  Uh, yeah, it definitely does. It drastically reduces the number of people/organizations who can exploit the vulnerability. Needing physical access is a huge obstacle for your average cyber criminal.
Obligatory: Intel CPU Backdoor Report by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-23 06:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

Obligatory: Intel CPU Backdoor Report
Intel CPU Backdoor Report (Updated Mar 13, 2017)
The goal of this report is to make the existence of Intel CPU backdoors a common knowledge and provide information on backdoor removal.
What we know about Intel CPU backdoors so far:
TL;DR version

Your Intel CPU and Chipset is running a backdoor as we speak.
The backdoor hardware is inside the CPU/Bridge and the backdoor firmware (Intel Management Engine) is in the chipset flash memory.

30C3 Intel ME live hack:
@21m43s, keystrokes leaked from Intel ME above the OS, wireshark failed to detect packets.
[Video Link] 30C3: Persistent, Stealthy, Remote-controlled Dedicated Hardware Malware
[Quotes] Vortrag:
"DAGGER exploits Intel's Manageability Engine (ME), that executes firmware code such as Intel's Active Management Technology (iAMT), as well as its OOB network channel."
"the ME provides a perfect environment for undetectable sensitive data leakage on behalf of the attacker. Our presentation consists of three parts. The first part addresses how to find valuable data in the main memory of the host. The second part exploits the ME's OOB network channel to exfiltrate captured data to an external platform and to inject new attack code to target other interesting data structures available in the host runtime memory. The last part deals with the implementation of a covert network channel based on JitterBug."
"We have recently improved DAGGER's capabilites to include support for 64-bit operating systems and a stealthy update mechanism to download new attack code."
"To be more precise, we show how to conduct a DMA attack using Intel's Manageability Engine (ME)."
"We can permanently monitor the keyboard buffer on both operating system targets."

Backdoor removal:
The backdoor firmware can be removed by following this guide using the me_cleaner script.
Removal requires a Raspberry Pi (with GPIO pins) and a SOIC clip.

Decoding Intel backdoors:
The situation is out of control and the Libreboot/Coreboot community is looking for BIOS/Firmware experts to help with the Intel ME decoding effort.
If you are skilled in these areas, download Intel ME firmwares from this collection and have a go at them, beware Intel is using a lot of counter measures to prevent their backdoors from being decoded (explained below).

Useful links:
The Intel ME subsystem can take over your machine, can't be audited
REcon 2014 - Intel Management Engine Secrets
Untrusting the CPU (33c3)
Towards (reasonably) trustworthy x86 laptops
30C3 To Protect And Infect - The militarization of the Internet
30c3: To Protect And Infect Part 2 - Mass Surveillance Tools & Software
1. Introduction, what is Intel ME

Short version, from Intel staff:
Re: What Intel CPUs lack Intel ME secondary processor?
Amy_Intel Feb 8, 2016 9:27 AM
The Management Engine (ME) is an isolated and protected cop
Russia scared of Apple by WillAffleckUW · 2017-03-23 06:19 · Score: 1

Buy Apple. It's the American thing to do.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Dead wrong again by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-23 06:37 · Score: 1

Are you people really stupid or just paid shill? Or you have some kind of weak mind that you just can't accept how bad things are?
You really need to look at reality more before talking out of your ass, they've got you by the balls.
I just updated the report:
7. Active Intel ME Example:
Thinkpad X201 has KVM and Anti-Theft (internal 3G) enabled by default

intelmetool -s
ME: Firmware Version 0.996.511.0
ME Capability- Full Network manageability - ON
ME Capability- Regular Network manageability - OFF
ME Capability- Manageability - ON
ME Capability- Small business technology - OFF
ME Capability- Level III manageability - OFF
ME Capability- Intel Anti-Theft (AT) - ON
ME Capability- Intel Capability Licensing Service (CLS) - ON
ME Capability- Intel Power Sharing Technology (MPC) - ON
ME Capability- ICC Over Clocking - ON
ME Capability- Protected Audio Video Path (PAVP) - ON
ME Capability- IPV6 - ON
ME Capability- KVM Remote Control (KVM) - ON
ME Capability- Outbreak Containment Heuristic (OCH) - OFF
ME Capability- Virtual LAN (VLAN) - OFF
ME Capability- TLS - ON
ME Capability- Wireless LAN (WLAN) - OFF
Re:UEFI rhymes with goofy by Zero__Kelvin · 2017-03-23 07:07 · Score: 1

It is pronounced as "You Effy" so it rhymes with your friend's Jeff's name when he was a kid (Jeffy) ... as in , hey You ... Jeffy ... come here. So no, it does not rhyme with Goofy.

If a computer tech has told you that it makes his job more difficult then said computer tech is an incompetent moron.

As far as your claim you don't seem to understand how the optional Secure Boot facility would stop this attack cold in it's tracks. With UEFI you CAN fight such an attack. With BIOS you have no such capability to protect against boot sector viruses, etc. Your post is nothing but ignorant claims about technology you don't understand, so much so that you don't even know how to pronounce the technologies name.

Is UEFI perfect? Of course not. Is it the best possible solution? Of course not. Is it better than BIOS? Hell to the fscking YES.

--
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Re:UEFI rhymes with goofy by cfalcon · 2017-03-23 08:54 · Score: 1

Pretty much fuck you.
UEFI has greatly complicated everything it touches that I run into professionally, because it has turned stuff that had a reasonably standard way of happening into a shitshow of different custom crap, stupid shims, etc. Legacy OSes get confused, so it seems mostly tuned towards the applications that use the latest and greatest stuff. Sometimes you have to try out numerous combinations where the firmware treats some components as legacy BIOS and others as UEFI. The machines take longer than ever to boot, which I'm not sure is related to UEFI, but seems to have started around the same time.
All this from a product that was supposed to make stuff simpler!
Bitching about boot sector viruses is a dumb joke. BIOS just boots what you give it. If the BIOS isn't writable, then you can be sure your virus is gone if you just take out all the writable parts. With UEFI, you can have a FIRMWARE VIRUS that is literally and completely impossible to detect or remove. UEFI's ability to only launch a signed shim thing only inconveniences me, while creating an entirely new low level exploitable place that you can never trust- that is actually the point of this news article, after all.
UEFI is more capable, and slowly becoming standard enough. But it is still a mess that allows a new infection vector, a new place to store viruses, and somehow tries to be more secure by giving only Microsoft a signing key that everyone else has to beg for. There's a lotta backwards decisions in UEFI-land.
Re:hack or backdoor by AHuxley · 2017-03-23 09:59 · Score: 1

Hacked in shipment. The product line arrives altered as shipped, sealed and new to the interesting person.
A step away from the junk as designed or setting a junk international standard idea of the 1950-80's. The classic backdoor, trap door design.
The crypto can be examined and passed by outside experts. The product that then arrives as a random shipment is altered junk.
The data is then collected in person later, or from a normal network.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Re: You can't really be that naive by AHuxley · 2017-03-23 10:19 · Score: 1

Re "Except you can monitor network connections."
AC thats why the later data collection is often done in person.
The code can outlast any rebuild, reinstall. Its more about been nice place to hide rather than needing a network out connection that will show in any log.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
UEFI, the Mac equivalent to Bios for PCs by lbalbalba · 2017-03-23 10:37 · Score: 1

EFI and UEFI is the core firmware for Macs, the Mac equivalent to the Bios for PCs.
Not just for Mac's: All current PC's use UEFI - instead of BIOS - as well as Mac's do.
Re:To clarify the parent's assertion: by goombah99 · 2017-03-23 15:43 · Score: 2

Newer versions are turning out to not allow bios disablement. The sad history of this, from what I can peice together is that initially you could disable it in bios. Then newver versions had "hidden" bios diablement. that is to say, no GUI bios diablement but still an editable firmware disablement. Then newer still ones, no possibility to disablement. For these some people have discovered that overwriting certain blocks (basically all blocks after the first block) of this allows disablement without the 30 second shutdown. One can see where this is headed in the next generation very easily.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.