On Sat, Apr 04, 2015 at 11:49:08AM -0400, Nick Holland wrote: > On 04/04/15 10:17, Артур Истомин wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 04, 2015 at 03:27:05PM +0200, Martin Schröder wrote: > >> 2015-04-04 13:08 GMT+02:00 Ðртур ИÑтомин <art.is...@yandex.ru>: > >> > https://github.com/carmaa/inception/blob/master/README.md > >> > > >> > Is OpenBSD susceptible to this attack? I mean not tool themself, > >> > I mean vector of attack. > >> > >> There is no Firewrire support in OpenBSD, so no. > > > > "The tool can attack over FireWire, Thunderbolt, ExpressCard, PC Card > > and *any other PCI/PCIe HW interfaces*" > > > >> Btw: This is old news. > > > > Yes, but now practical realisation in a wild. So I'm interesting we're > > secure against such attack? I see that latest MS Windows and Mas OS X > > already patched. I suspect that it is harder for BSD/Linux because of > > absence of such close relationship between graphical system and kernel > > in Windows/MacOS (their solution is hack. They secure only when loged > > out). > > so...you want an OS (which is hopelessly dependent upon hw) to protect > against malicious hardware? How is that supposed to work? > > I find spelling DMA out as "DIRECT MEMORY ACCESS" really kinda puts it > all in perspective. Hardware with DIRECT ... MEMORY ... ACCESS. If you > don't trust that hardware, it is GAME OVER. > > Ok, yes, some things, people might be surprised to find out have Direct > Memory Access, such as Firewire, or Thunderbolt. Things that mom or > grandpa is expected to plug in are often considered "trusted". That's > wrong. We've known that for quite some time. > > But nothing new here -- your computer has to be trusted. This is why we > have always said you must trust your physical environment. Hardware > that can take over the computer and control its operation dates > back...well, pretty much to the dawn of computers (i.e., hardware > debuggers. If you can REMOVE bug with hardware, you can certainly > insert them). > > In fact, about five seconds after someone says "Firewire has DIRECT > MEMORY ACCESS", I think you should say, "oh. baad idea" (those five > seconds were spent wondering if there was a use of "DMA" that applies > here that you weren't thinking of).
All this is true and I totally agree with you. But there are partial workarounds against this attack (see Windows/MacOS). All I wanted to know whether there were any work in this direction. I'm not a programer. It is impossible for me to answer to yourself by studying commits to CVS. Thanks for your answer.
