Post: security in proprietary and open source software and hardware

  • security vs obscurity
  • most people are good
  • easy find, esay fix vs find only by determined hacker
  • vulnerability hording
  • my experience with finding and reporting security issue (MonetDB Analyze) and how I would not know if it was exploitable but someone more determined would in propertiry soft.
  • decompiling dacades old software: Netgear issue and TCP/IP embedded lib (Security Now late Jun)
  • Linux vs Windows security
  • If Windows source code were to leak we would be getting a security Armageddon
  • Abandoned software cannot be fixed (e.g. firmware) if there are vunls found... if it was OSS you could potentially patch it
Assigned to
6 months ago
10 days ago
No labels applied.

~jpastuszek 6 months ago

~jpastuszek 5 months ago

~jpastuszek 5 months ago

~jpastuszek 5 months ago

Three letter agencies can get the source code.

~jpastuszek 5 months ago


I worked for Intel and had access to FW, and judging by comments so did half of /r/netsec and two thirds of HN. So any conspiracy would be very hard to hide, as it would involve unbelievably large amount of privacy-oriented people. And I'll repeat myself, even if your goal is to have a backdoor capability for all recent Intel CPUs, why would you choose to implant a new bug, when there's already so much (buggy) code running at ring subzero privileges? Wouldn't it make more sense to employ that army of math wizards, physics grads and reverse engineers which NSA spends so much resources hiring and training? Independent researchers have found so many high impact bugs in Intel's hardware, why would you expect any less from the government that's out to get you? tl;dr: embedded systems are so buggy that there is no need to add any intentional backdoors

~jpastuszek 5 months ago

Device "black boxes": https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/08/snapdragon-chip-flaws-put-1-billion-android-phones-at-risk-of-data-theft/

“While DSP chips provide a relatively economical solution that allows mobile phones to provide end users with more functionality and enable innovative features—they do come with a cost,” researchers from security firm Check Point wrote in a brief report of the vulnerabilities they discovered. “These chips introduce new attack surface and weak points to these mobile devices. DSP chips are much more vulnerable to risks as they are being managed as ‘Black Boxes’ since it can be very complex for anyone other than their manufacturer to review their design, functionality or code.”

~jpastuszek 5 months ago

https://archive.org/details/hopeconf2020/20200725_1000_Hacking_a_Human_Mind_in_Conversation.mp4 On how low has changed over time from consumer protecting and innovation focused Trademark/Copyright/Patent laws to current IP laws and how this made reverse engineering illegal and how it will make fuzzing also illegal in the future.

~jpastuszek 4 months ago

IT is the only field in which this is practiced: No one builds a bridge or a hospital and keeps the composition of the steel or the equations used to calculate load stresses a secret. It is a frankly bizarre practice that leads, time and again, to grotesque security defects on farcical scales, with whole classes of devices being revealed as vulnerable long after they are deployed in the field and put into sensitive places.


~jpastuszek a month ago*


"but some quick Googling showed that it wasn't open source, which suggested to me that the code had probably undergone substantially less security review, and hence probably had more low-hanging bugs in it, than the open-source parts of the kernel."

"Security researchers rejoice when Apple accidentally releases symbolicated kernelcaches or development libraries, but this is just because it saves time reversing, not because it makes things newly reversible. Any capable attacker will find bugs regardless of the presence or absence of symbols; all the lack of symbols does is keep the bug away from eyes (like mine) that might report it. Hence, withholding symbols is an incredibly weak protection, only deterring the lowest tiers of attackers and serving to make the bugs that have been found last longer"

~jpastuszek 10 days ago

Secrecy of crypto algo vs publishing crypto algo and making it keyed with a secret.

Register here or Log in to comment, or comment via email.