NODE eafc82f5Re: trusting the processor chip
Rick Smith <smith@sctc.com>Sat, 27 Apr 1996 10:35:15 +0800
cwe@it.kth.se (Christian Wettergren) writes:
>Take a look at the IEEE Symp on Security and Privacy Proceedings from
>1995, I believe it was. There was a paper there about security bugs in
>the Intel processors, enumerating a number of them in 80386 for example.
>There where at least one or two byte sequences that plainly stopped
>the processor.
Yes, and this is where the real risks are. The original question was
entirely about explicit subversion. The larger risk is accidental
flaws. Same with software in most cases.
Rick.
smith@sctc.com secure computing corporation
NODE ab2e8760Re: trusting the processor chip
Adam Shostack <adam@lighthouse.homeport.org>Sat, 27 Apr 1996 13:39:09 +0800
Ross Anderson's "Programing Satans Computer" springs to mind.
www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/
Ross' papers are up there on my list of very worthwhile reading.
Adam
Rick Smith wrote:
|
|
| cwe@it.kth.se (Christian Wettergren) writes:
|
| >Take a look at the IEEE Symp on Security and Privacy Proceedings from
| >1995, I believe it was. There was a paper there about security bugs in
| >the Intel processors, enumerating a number of them in 80386 for example.
| >There where at least one or two byte sequences that plainly stopped
| >the processor.
|
| Yes, and this is where the real risks are. The original question was
| entirely about explicit subversion. The larger risk is accidental
| flaws. Same with software in most cases.
|
| Rick.
| smith@sctc.com secure computing corporation
|
--
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
-Hume