This story needs to be redacted. The study has not been peer reviewed and has factual errors. This is bad journalism.https://twitter.com/WIRED/status/1259669698494509056 …
-
Show this thread
-
@a_greenberg did any security expert confirm the findings? Did Intel give a comment? The OEMs don’t have knowledge of TB3 firmware at all.1 reply 2 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @yifanlu
As you can see in the story, the Eindhoven folks ran their findings by Karsten Nohl, and yes I sought comment from Intel and they responded with the blog post I quoted there. Not sure what your issue with the piece is, but maybe
@0Xiphorus can help.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @a_greenberg @0Xiphorus
Did you independently verify their claims? Vulnerability 1 does not work period (cannot be reproduced). The other ones are irrelevant.
3 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Irrelevant meaning x86 threat model does not include soldering wires inside the computer. You can do a lot worse than hack TB3 with that.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @yifanlu @a_greenberg
@yifanlu Soldering wires is only one of three possible avenues for one exploitation scenario (section 3.3 in the report). The other two methods, and the remaining 8 exploitation scenarios, all do not require any soldering.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
SOIC clips only work for laptops where the flash chip is a SOIC, and either way qualify as "soldering" for the purposes of this argument. Do any of your attacks work without disassembling the case of either the victim system or a trusted device?
-
-
Replying to @marcan42 @a_greenberg
Also for
@WIRED this doesn’t count as peer review. It’s still your responsibility to independently verify the claims.0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.