<story><title>Microsoft proves backdoor keys are a bad idea</title><url>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/10/microsoft_secure_boot_ms16_100/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>bradford</author><text>I think you&amp;#x27;re missing my point (and my poor wording probably didn&amp;#x27;t help).&lt;p&gt;A backdoor that requires physical access isn&amp;#x27;t a backdoor.  If an attacker has such access,  you&amp;#x27;re already screwed.&lt;p&gt;A backdoor that requires administrative privileges isn&amp;#x27;t a backdoor.  If an attacker has such access, you&amp;#x27;re already screwed.&lt;p&gt;The so-called dev&amp;#x2F;test &amp;#x27;backdoor&amp;#x27; really isn&amp;#x27;t a backdoor.  It&amp;#x27;s a &amp;#x27;unlock&amp;#x27; tool that&amp;#x27;s required for anyone who&amp;#x27;s going to engineer the device.  My main beef is that this article appears to be re-branding the engineering unlock as a backdoor, and confusion is obviously ensuing.&lt;p&gt;Again, In my original post, I asked &amp;quot;What&amp;#x27;s the exploit&amp;quot;? and I understand that the existence of an exploit might not be the article&amp;#x27;s subject, but If you really think that there&amp;#x27;s a security problem here, I&amp;#x27;ll ask it again: &amp;quot;What&amp;#x27;s the exploit?&amp;quot;</text></item><item><author>pipio21</author><text>I s there any difference between a test&amp;#x2F;development backdoor and a FBI backdoor?.&lt;p&gt;If you let backdoors in the system, of course the secret services will demand to have it.&lt;p&gt;In fact, backdoors that were put in place because secret services&amp;#x27; pressure, will be suited as developer backdoors as an excuse when found by the mainstream.&lt;p&gt;First they install backdoors in systems, in order for MS or the US gobertment to have complete access to any computer in the world, then they worry when the Chinese and Russians find them.</text></item><item><author>bradford</author><text>Ok, I get it. The message is &amp;quot;don&amp;#x27;t use backdoors, because they&amp;#x27;ll inevitably get leaked&amp;quot;, which I agree with.&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, I don&amp;#x27;t think that&amp;#x27;s the message that&amp;#x27;s being interpreted by the vast majority of readers.  I&amp;#x27;m delving into opinion territory now, but when the word &amp;#x27;backdoor&amp;#x27; is used, aren&amp;#x27;t most people going to assume that it&amp;#x27;s an FBI backdoor, instead of a test&amp;#x2F;development backdoor?  This seems like the kind of article that fans the fuels of conspiracy theorists, and no one seems to be doing anything to correct the record.</text></item><item><author>Knuff</author><text>The point the register makes is not that this allows unlocking devices (though that&amp;#x27;s interesting in it&amp;#x27;s own right), but that is done via a &amp;quot;secret key&amp;quot; that now got exposed. Very similar to what the government wants with key escrows and other backdoor mechanisms for decryption of communication.&lt;p&gt;Maybe to clarify: it highlights the mechanism (golden key) is flawed. That Microsoft uses it for boot loaders is unimportant.</text></item><item><author>bradford</author><text>(disclaimer, MS employee, non-security expert here).&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ve read through the article, here, and in other places, and I&amp;#x27;m seeing sentiment that this is a big fuck up on Microsoft&amp;#x27;s part.  I might be completely misunderstanding, but I just don&amp;#x27;t see it.&lt;p&gt;In order to use the backdoor, you&amp;#x27;ve got to flash firmware, so, you&amp;#x27;ve got to have physical access to the device.  If an attacker has physical access to your device, you&amp;#x27;re already screwed.&lt;p&gt;So, I don&amp;#x27;t doubt that the key exists (I had to use it myself when testing RT devices back in the win8 days), but what&amp;#x27;s the exploit here? Why is it, as the title suggests, a &amp;#x27;bad idea&amp;#x27;?  Isn&amp;#x27;t a secure boot policy that can be bypassed with physical access more secure than none?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>mindslight</author><text>&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;A backdoor that requires physical access isn&amp;#x27;t a backdoor. If an attacker has such access, you&amp;#x27;re already screwed.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;The security model of &amp;quot;secure boot&amp;quot; is designed to mitigate physical access, so a private way of circumventing that property is a backdoor.&lt;p&gt;While breaking this one aspect leaves other useful security properties intact, if those properties had been the only goal, they could have been implemented with a simpler and more user-friendly system.</text></comment>
<story><title>Microsoft proves backdoor keys are a bad idea</title><url>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/10/microsoft_secure_boot_ms16_100/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>bradford</author><text>I think you&amp;#x27;re missing my point (and my poor wording probably didn&amp;#x27;t help).&lt;p&gt;A backdoor that requires physical access isn&amp;#x27;t a backdoor.  If an attacker has such access,  you&amp;#x27;re already screwed.&lt;p&gt;A backdoor that requires administrative privileges isn&amp;#x27;t a backdoor.  If an attacker has such access, you&amp;#x27;re already screwed.&lt;p&gt;The so-called dev&amp;#x2F;test &amp;#x27;backdoor&amp;#x27; really isn&amp;#x27;t a backdoor.  It&amp;#x27;s a &amp;#x27;unlock&amp;#x27; tool that&amp;#x27;s required for anyone who&amp;#x27;s going to engineer the device.  My main beef is that this article appears to be re-branding the engineering unlock as a backdoor, and confusion is obviously ensuing.&lt;p&gt;Again, In my original post, I asked &amp;quot;What&amp;#x27;s the exploit&amp;quot;? and I understand that the existence of an exploit might not be the article&amp;#x27;s subject, but If you really think that there&amp;#x27;s a security problem here, I&amp;#x27;ll ask it again: &amp;quot;What&amp;#x27;s the exploit?&amp;quot;</text></item><item><author>pipio21</author><text>I s there any difference between a test&amp;#x2F;development backdoor and a FBI backdoor?.&lt;p&gt;If you let backdoors in the system, of course the secret services will demand to have it.&lt;p&gt;In fact, backdoors that were put in place because secret services&amp;#x27; pressure, will be suited as developer backdoors as an excuse when found by the mainstream.&lt;p&gt;First they install backdoors in systems, in order for MS or the US gobertment to have complete access to any computer in the world, then they worry when the Chinese and Russians find them.</text></item><item><author>bradford</author><text>Ok, I get it. The message is &amp;quot;don&amp;#x27;t use backdoors, because they&amp;#x27;ll inevitably get leaked&amp;quot;, which I agree with.&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, I don&amp;#x27;t think that&amp;#x27;s the message that&amp;#x27;s being interpreted by the vast majority of readers.  I&amp;#x27;m delving into opinion territory now, but when the word &amp;#x27;backdoor&amp;#x27; is used, aren&amp;#x27;t most people going to assume that it&amp;#x27;s an FBI backdoor, instead of a test&amp;#x2F;development backdoor?  This seems like the kind of article that fans the fuels of conspiracy theorists, and no one seems to be doing anything to correct the record.</text></item><item><author>Knuff</author><text>The point the register makes is not that this allows unlocking devices (though that&amp;#x27;s interesting in it&amp;#x27;s own right), but that is done via a &amp;quot;secret key&amp;quot; that now got exposed. Very similar to what the government wants with key escrows and other backdoor mechanisms for decryption of communication.&lt;p&gt;Maybe to clarify: it highlights the mechanism (golden key) is flawed. That Microsoft uses it for boot loaders is unimportant.</text></item><item><author>bradford</author><text>(disclaimer, MS employee, non-security expert here).&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;ve read through the article, here, and in other places, and I&amp;#x27;m seeing sentiment that this is a big fuck up on Microsoft&amp;#x27;s part.  I might be completely misunderstanding, but I just don&amp;#x27;t see it.&lt;p&gt;In order to use the backdoor, you&amp;#x27;ve got to flash firmware, so, you&amp;#x27;ve got to have physical access to the device.  If an attacker has physical access to your device, you&amp;#x27;re already screwed.&lt;p&gt;So, I don&amp;#x27;t doubt that the key exists (I had to use it myself when testing RT devices back in the win8 days), but what&amp;#x27;s the exploit here? Why is it, as the title suggests, a &amp;#x27;bad idea&amp;#x27;?  Isn&amp;#x27;t a secure boot policy that can be bypassed with physical access more secure than none?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Nullabillity</author><text>&amp;gt; A backdoor that requires physical access isn&amp;#x27;t a backdoor. If an attacker has such access, you&amp;#x27;re already screwed.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; A backdoor that requires administrative privileges isn&amp;#x27;t a backdoor. If an attacker has such access, you&amp;#x27;re already screwed.&lt;p&gt;Then why bother trying to lock it down in the first place?</text></comment>