• GlitterInfection@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    195
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    8 months ago

    This requires local access to do and presently an hour or two of uninterrupted processing time on the same cpu as the encryption algorithm.

    So if you’re like me, using an M-chip based device, you don’t currently have to worry about this, and may never have to.

    On the other hand, the thing you have to worry about has not been patched out of nearly any algorithm:

    https://xkcd.com/538/

    • mox@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      155
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      The second comment on the page sums up what I was going to point out:

      I’d be careful making assumptions like this ; the same was true of exploits like Spectre until people managed to get it efficiently running in Javascript in a browser (which did not take very long after the spectre paper was released). Don’t assume that because the initial PoC is time consuming and requires a bunch of access that it won’t be refined into something much less demanding in short order.

      Let’s not panic, but let’s not get complacent, either.

      • GlitterInfection@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        That’s the sentiment I was going for.

        There’s reason to care about this but it’s not presently a big deal.

      • linearchaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        8 months ago

        I mean, unpatchable vulnerability. Complacent, uncomplacent, I’m not real sure they look different.

        • booly@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          8 months ago

          Can’t fix the vulnerability, but can mitigate by preventing other code from exploiting the vulnerability in a useful way.

        • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          8 months ago

          No way! Even the evil ones will try to avoid jail.

          Meanwhile they might have a friggin budget for the GrayKey, the Stingray

          Definitely believe rights are more likely to be violated when they can just plug in or power on without getting their gloves dirty.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        It still requires user level access, which means they have to bypass my login password first, which would give them most of that anyways.

        Am I missing something?

          • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Yes, if you install malware it can be malware.

            This specifically was in response to a claim about the police taking your laptop despite the fact that it doesn’t appear to enhance their ability to do anything with possession of your laptop until they are able to bypass a password.

    • Killing_Spark@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yeah I don’t think this is a big-ish problem currently. But by having this vulnerability to point to, other CPU vendors have a good reason not to include this feature in their own chips.

    • blarth@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      What I’m worried about is Apple overreacting and bottlenecking my M3 pro because “security”. We already saw how fixes for these types of vulnerabilities on Intel and AMD silicon affected performance; no thank you.