this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2024
-16 points (39.2% liked)
Technology
58094 readers
3176 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As pointed out elsewhere, the attack requires kernel-level access, and anyone with that access can do a lot of damage anyway.
And the flaw can be fixed (there's a fix out), it's just that there's no remediation once the flaw has been exploited.
It also means no AMD server could be resold because there is no way to know if it was previously infected
One of these things is not like the other.
Yeah, turning an exploit into one that survives a fresh install is a big deal.
It's always been a thing that the only way to completely be safe after malware is yeeting the old system and getting a new one...
And even then there have been actively exploited issues where the system gets re-infected when reloading the data from a backup. (My memory is a bit rusty on that one, but it was just data being restored, nothing that should install anything)
There has been a small element of risk, but it's low enough that this meaningfully increases it.
They're intrinsically linked, in fact. If you have kernel access, you can do any number of things, including but not limited to persistent rootkits. I agree that this bug is one step further, since it affects the processor itself, but if somebody has ring 0 access that shouldn't, you already have problems.
Read it again, in context. What they said is perfectly valid.
No, it is misleading. An exploit with no remediation is not remotely comparable to a normal root exploit, which can be fixed with a simple OS reinstall.
Edit: And their follow-up comment, "if somebody has ring 0 access that shouldn’t, you already have problems," is dangerously misleading. While technically true that you would have a problem in both scenarios, presenting it that way is like telling someone not to worry about losing a leg because their sprained ankle is already a problem.