News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:20GB leak of Intel data: whole Git repositories, dev tool... by yjftsjthsd-h on Thursday August 06, 2020 @04:41PM (#24075249)
It seems like a thin line between a debugging feature and a backdoor; "merely a debugging server that could be enabled and allowed you to inspect internal state during runtime" seems like a backdoor to me, doubly so if it's network-accessible. If Intel has, say, an undocumented way to trigger a debug mode that lets you read memory and bypass restrictions (ex. read kernel memory from user mode, or read SGX memory), is that not a backdoor? Or is the name based on intent?
Re:20GB leak of Intel data: whole Git repositories, dev tool... by jdminhbg on Thursday August 06, 2020 @04:59PM (#24075409)
I think the difference is whether it's something that's always enabled. You could presumably make it available or not at compile time, so the software shipped to a customer wouldn't have it, but maybe if they were having issues, you could ship them a version with the debug server with their permission.
Re:20GB leak of Intel data: whole Git repositories, dev tool... by yjftsjthsd-h on Thursday August 06, 2020 @05:23PM (#24075600)
I can agree with that with the caveat that "enabled" has to be at either something that only the user can do. If it requires that the customer intentionally run a debug build, that's fine; if it can be toggled on without their knowledge, then it's a problem.
Re:20GB leak of Intel data: whole Git repositories, dev tool... by orisho on Thursday August 06, 2020 @05:27PM (#24075634)
It was disabled by default, and could only be enabled using environment variables. Even when enabled, the whole thing ran in Docker and the socket was bound to loopback, so you could only connect to it from within the container.

When the intention is a debugging server, making it exposed to the world is a mistake and a security vulnerability. At that point it is effectively a backdoor, but the difference between a high level vulnerability such as this and a backdoor is developer intent.

Re:20GB leak of Intel data: whole Git repositories, dev tool... by tantalor on Thursday August 06, 2020 @05:43PM (#24075790)
That doesn't sound very safe.
Re:20GB leak of Intel data: whole Git repositories, dev tool... by lukevp on Thursday August 06, 2020 @06:44PM (#24076213)
What sounds unsafe about having a locally bound port inside a container that only binds with an env variable getting set?
Re:20GB leak of Intel data: whole Git repositories, dev tool... by still_grokking on Thursday August 06, 2020 @07:07PM (#24076365)
For example that someone finds out about that backdoor and activate it to spy on users. Forwarding a port in Docker is not magic…
Re:20GB leak of Intel data: whole Git repositories, dev tool... by orisho on Thursday August 06, 2020 @07:11PM (#24076391)
Sure, it's simple. But you would have to be able to modify the container settings anyway. For all practical uses, and certainly in my case, you could just make it run a different image at that point. Or copy another executable into the container and run it. You're already privileged. Requiring you to be privileged to access the debug server means it's secure.
Re:20GB leak of Intel data: whole Git repositories, dev tool... by still_grokking on Thursday August 06, 2020 @07:53PM (#24076620)
Until things around change and what was previously "a secure backdoor" becomes a "less secure backdoor". ;-)

One can read every second week about cases where some backdoor that was meant to be used "only for debugging" landed in the end product and became a security problem.

Actually I usually suspect malice when something like that is found once again, as "who the hell could be so stupid to deliver a product with a glaring backdoor". But maybe there is something to Hanlon's razor… :-D

Re:20GB leak of Intel data: whole Git repositories, dev tool... by orisho on Thursday August 06, 2020 @07:10PM (#24076380)
If you're already running another process in the container, you could do whatever you want anyway.
Re:20GB leak of Intel data: whole Git repositories, dev tool... by fit2rule on Thursday August 06, 2020 @05:39PM (#24075742)
Was it a backdoor, or a hidden door, or .. a utility panel?

The difference, in my opinion, is in the documentation and frequency of use. Is it overt? Does the customer really know its there, and what its for?

Perfectly fine to have an access panel that gives you access to the buss .. if the pilot knows you're doing it.

But if its some random entrance in the back of an alley, only 2 or 3 users in the universe know what it is and how to use it ..

Re:20GB leak of Intel data: whole Git repositories, dev tool... by close04 on Thursday August 06, 2020 @06:41PM (#24076191)
Imagine the reaction if the same thing was coming from China. Nobody would ask the question.
Re:20GB leak of Intel data: whole Git repositories, dev tool... by fit2rule on Friday August 07, 2020 @03:13AM (#24079196)
Nationality has nothing to do with it. I also don't trust Americans with such devices.
Re:20GB leak of Intel data: whole Git repositories, dev tool... by close04 on Friday August 07, 2020 @04:59AM (#24079869)
I'm talking about the general sentiment. You can see this on every* site, HN included. The litmus paper is that even pointing out something objectively true will get criticism (downvotes) rather than critical thinking. In the current atmosphere nobody asks the question when it comes to China/Russia/NK/Iran but will when it comes to the US despite the known history of hacking/spying on everyone else.

*Recently a reputable tech site wrote an article introducing DJI (ostensibly a company needing no introduction) as "Chinese-made drone app in Google Play spooks security researchers". One day later the same author wrote an article "Hackers actively exploit high-severity networking vulnerabilities" when referring to Cisco and F5. The difference in approach is quite staggering especially considering that Cisco is known to have been involved, even unwittingly, in the NSA exploits leaked in the past.

This highlights the sentiment mentioned above: people ask the question only when they feel comfortable that the answer reinforces their opinion.