😳

  • frongt@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    120
    ·
    7 hours ago

    In the PXE boot code. Very low risk for the vast majority of people.

    • addie@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 hours ago

      You also need to have sufficiently infiltrated the target’s local network to masquerade as a PXE server, and be in a position to force a server to reboot / just wait for one to reboot. Yes, a few places have large, fairly open networks with a lot of devices configure to PXE boot and they should apply the update before the next reboot, but vast majority of people, no issue at all.

        • addie@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          22 minutes ago

          It’s how I installed Arch btw on my desktop, tiny boot image basically downloads the installer into RAM - NetBoot.

          But yeah, if you’ve got a computer that’s old enough to be fully supported yet new enough to have the UEFI for hardware, an ethernet network which is robust enough to download full system images on every restart yet simple enough for the firmware to understand, and tonnes of memory free to hold the whole OS at all times, and you can tolerate the fact that restarts take ages, then it works great.

      • takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Since it is remote execution in UEFI, does that mean if you compromised the system you can now use this to install a backdoor in the firmware so wiping and reinstalling won’t help?

        • addie@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          30 minutes ago

          I think the detailed description of this vulnerability described it as non-persistent in UEFI, but that you could install something that runs before secure boot that would be persistent. I think that’s splitting hairs, though - if you’ve been compromised by someone that has the skills to pull this exploit off, then they can probably chain something else into it now that they’ve got basically bare-metal access.

  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    89
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    6 hours ago

    The parties that discovered CVE-2026-97631—Alex Matrosov of Anthropic and Dan Holmes of Google—had arranged for it to stay under wraps until a coordinated disclosure that was scheduled for January. AMI, a maker of motherboards and other hardware, published this pull request last month that detailed the vulnerability and included a code fix. Once the post came to the attention of the discovering parties, TianoCore Project members published a public advisory last week.

    Hot take: botched disclosures like this should open a company to criminal liability. We need to start treating SWE with the same level of scrutiny we do other engineering fields and not “oopsie poopsie, I accidentally just disclosed an attack that endangers global infrastructure.”

    Edit: Also, just of fucking course it’s a buffer overflow in C code. “No way to prevent this, says only nation where this regularly happens” vibes.

    • scratchee@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 minutes ago

      Hey now, C isn’t the only language with this problem, I’m a proud c++ dev and I assure you we get it regularly too. You just find our freedoms uncomfortable because they cause so much destruction and harm, but if you only understood the pure bliss of being allowed to do any terrible thing we can think of, you’d understand that it’s worth all the problems it causes!

    • non_burglar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 hours ago

      That is indeed a hot take. The cve involves crafting a PXE packet, so just… Don’t use PXE in your environment.

      If you do, you already know of the dangers of signing exploits in boot images, DNS shenanigans, and all that.

      I’m not saying this isn’t serious, but it’s not really the end of the world.

      • Big Baby Thor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 minutes ago

        The NSA has made both Microsoft and Apple withhold security patches to make their enemies vulnerable, but also makes the general populace vulnerable to these issues, which can or even has been continuously exploited by hacker groups under nation state actors who considers the US enemy.

        So yes, they should be held liable and sued for not disclosing vulnerabilities to the world at large, because keeping it secret is inherently stupid and self defeatist.

  • nosuchanon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    It would be ironic if AI used this exploit to turn itself and every computer on the planet off forever.

    Like fuck this mess, I’m out. Peace.

    Then we’d have to fix our own shit and start taking to each other instead of destroying each other.

  • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Neat. So are legacy BIOS actually more secure at the moment? Weird to think about but very reminiscent of that one time almost every Gigabyte mobo had an exploit tied to its online update capability.

    • nightwatch_admin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Yes, actual BIOSes have no network access. They had other issues though, like enough space to embed hidden persistent malware, writable from Windows.

    • SHY_TUCKER@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Is it really ironic though? Personally, I never believed UEFI’s primary purpose had anything to do with security. “Linux is a cancer”, remember?

      • hperrin@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        UEFI was based on Intel’s earlier EFI. In 2005, the UEFI Forum was formed to develop it from there. Microsoft was just one company involved in the development of UEFI.

      • xxce2AAb@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Yeah, I know, I know. Let me amend that to “ironic given the stated aims”.