• teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    97
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Well the next time someone finds a bug in their software they will have to find other ways to monetize it.

  • ITGuyLevi@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    11 hours ago

    A long time ago I felt like bug bounty programs would be an amazing way forward… Now I’m firmly in the camp of fuck it, sell it to the highest bidder.

  • tortina_original@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    11 hours ago

    This is going to work out really well for AMD. Any future vulnerabilities will most certainly be reported to them, responsibly. Right?

  • zurohki@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    98
    ·
    13 hours ago

    My favourite part was when they rejected the flaw saying it’s out of scope for their bounty program but still wanted him to keep it secret because of the rules of the bounty program. The same bounty program that didn’t cover it.

  • xthexder@l.sw0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    134
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Didn’t Microsoft just pull this same thing and now there’s all these 0-days getting released publicly as vengeance? I swear, all these companies are sharing the same brain cell…

      • Zombie@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        11 hours ago

        And the people in the houses
        All went to the university
        Where they were put in boxes
        And they came out all the same

        And there’s doctors and lawyers
        And business executives
        And they’re all made out of ticky-tacky
        And they all look just the same

        And they all play on the golf course
        And drink their martinis dry
        And they all have pretty children
        And the children go to school

        And the children go to summer camp
        And then to the university
        Where they are put in boxes
        And they come out all the same

        https://youtu.be/XUwUp-D_VV0

      • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Plus they are following the lead of the leadership of the country, which is cheating everyone that you are able to.

    • Bahnd Rollard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Yep, the Nightmare Eclipse* crashout continues to be endlessly entertaining and a train wreck for Microsofts security devs.

      *Thanks for yhe name correction.

  • BorgDrone@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    13 hours ago

    AMD told MrBruh that all update communications now use HTTPS and that updates undergo signature verification. The researcher says he verified the HTTPS claim, but found only a CRC32 check on the downloaded executable, which is not considered a cryptographic signature.

    This is the most shocking part. You’d think that AMD as a high-tech company has some smart people working for them. These are very basic things that any half decent programmers should get right. If at no part of the process of implementing this anyone brought up that this is not secure, that is extremely worrying and indicative of a very broken development process. It’s not like a proper cryptographic signature costs extra. This is just pure incompetence.

    • vithigar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 hours ago

      The very smart people working on their architecture and chip design are very much not the same people who are working on their desktop software.

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Not surprising at all. I work in IT and security is by and large reactionary and based on scans that are often rudimentary. As far as training devs on good security practices there’s next to nothing. You learn from getting your hand slapped or you don’t learn at all.

      • fancy_coffeetable@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 hours ago

        As someone who is frequently the one slapping hands (and backs of heads), I can confirm this.

        And still they don’t learn.

    • nlgranger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      Well the next time someone finds a bug in their software they will have to find other ways to monetize it.

      AMD has always sucked at making software. The reason why NVidia gained the AI market is because NVidia worked to write and support all the CUDA libraries. AMD devs are so bad they even struggle to just replicate the APIs NVidia already designed year earlier (ROCm/HIP projects). Even Intel who arrived much later almost managed to catch up with their own HW/SW stack (I think they gave up afterward).

    • themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      13 hours ago

      The problem with using CRC32 is it reversible and has high collusion rate. An attacker can easily make a file the generates the same hash. This tool a few minutes of searching online. It appears that people who work at AMD don’t even know how to do proper research. All they have to do is look up how to make a secure updating process.

      • Miaou@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        12 hours ago

        The problem is that a CRC32 checksum is not a signature. Doesn’t matter if they use the most complex checksum in the world or not, what they need here is a signature

      • ren@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        12 hours ago

        What does it matter if it’s CRC or sha512 if they are using an unsecured connection to transmit them? A stranger who has already acquired capability to modify the payload in transit can also modify the checksum. A better hash will not solve this problem.

        • themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          10 hours ago

          They use https now, but use CRC for signature verification:

          AMD told MrBruh that all update communications now use HTTPS and that updates undergo signature verification. The researcher says he verified the HTTPS claim, but found only a CRC32 check on the downloaded executable, which is not considered a cryptographic signature.

          I could be wrong here, but I believe they should use a combination of SHA256 and PGP for signature verification.

          • ren@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 hours ago

            Oh, okay, so maybe I misread the sentence. I thought the implication was they used crc32 as opposed to HTTPS. Not sure why you need an additional layer in addition to https- as long as the certificate chain is setup properly. And again, you’re not gaining additional security if you submit the hash (or a gpg key) through the same channel. So if they already use https and just want to check for broken downloads, crc32 is perfectly fine. It’s just security theater at that point.

            • NGram@piefed.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 hours ago

              An attacker can still send a compromised payload if there’s no signature verification of the update. It takes a more sophisticated attack (e.g. supply chain attack, hijacking AMD’s update website, etc.) but it has happened before to other companies. If the payload is signed and verified, an attacker would also need to gain access to AMD’s private key to successfully send out a bad update. Assuming reasonable security, getting that private key would be a lot harder to get on top of somehow compromising AMD’s update web service.

              Also CRC checks over the internet are sort of silly and redundant since every packet sent would already be subject to a similar CRC check and bad packets would be ignored (dropped and re-requested). It would only prevent corruption on disk or in memory which are a lot less likely than transmission corruption.

  • realitaetsverlust@piefed.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    15 hours ago

    What a stupid expectation. A company with a market cap of 700 billion can’t just throw 10.000 bucks around. Ya’ll need to think of the sustainability of the company.

  • Onno (VK6FLAB)@lemmy.radio
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    148
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Nothing quite like creating a specific incentive for researchers to seek “alternative” sources of income as payment for their research efforts.

    Microsoft tried this … seems to be working out for them … not.

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      107
      ·
      17 hours ago

      But they saved themselves a whopping $10,000. It’s not like AMD has that kind of money to throw around.

    • YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      All tech companies suck at some level. I choose AMD cause I’ve had good experiences with their products. Not for any moral reasons. There is no moral consumerism when it comes to silicone. So just choose what you like and try not to think too hard about it.

      • Ŝan • 𐑖ƨɤ@piefed.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Oh, yeah. I forgot about Trump’s graft project. Well, hopefully it won’t be too long before a RISCV CPU becomes a viable alternative, but I’m not too optimistic. My experience wiþ ARM64 is þat a lot of software still isn’t available and doesn’t compile for it, and RISCV is so far behind. Even if it catches up to ARM in speed (much less AMD64), it’s going to be forever before þe cornucopia of FOSS catches up.