News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Petition for AMD to open-source the PSP (backdoor) in their chips. Parent comment

Re:Petition for AMD to open-source the PSP (backdoor) in the... by ryanlol on Monday March 13, 2017 @12:53PM (#13859627)
>It would need to be repeatably build-able with the result matching the signature of the default blob.

Huh? You can most certainly verify if an unsigned blob matches a signed blob.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Petition for AMD to open-source the PSP (backdoor) in the... by ysleepy on Monday March 13, 2017 @01:40PM (#13860218)
(?) Obviously, but building a bit-by-bit identical compiler output is moderately hard.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Petition for AMD to open-source the PSP (backdoor) in the... by ryanlol on Monday March 13, 2017 @02:25PM (#13860791)
I must've misunderstood you then.

Anyway, surely "This would not increase trust" is a bit of an overly strong statement. Even if AMD didn't release reproducible build instructions, having the source code would still make it significantly easier to detect AMD shipping different (compiled) code.

But yeah, open sourcing the PSP without reproducible builds would be a little silly.

[ Parent | on HN ]