Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > aus.computers > #71467 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-11-28 21:55 +1000 |
| Last post | 2024-12-16 16:39 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 43 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to aus.computers
Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> - 2024-11-28 21:55 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-11-29 07:27 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> - 2024-11-29 10:54 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> - 2024-11-30 17:53 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-12-01 06:43 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> - 2024-12-02 21:31 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-09 19:31 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> - 2024-12-09 19:33 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2024-12-10 00:22 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> - 2024-12-10 20:36 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2024-12-10 22:05 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-11 00:38 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-12-11 07:20 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-18 09:43 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-18 09:59 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2024-12-18 11:32 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-19 13:18 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2024-12-19 13:34 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-19 17:57 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-19 18:22 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-19 20:34 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-20 12:26 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-12-21 07:34 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-21 12:30 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-12-21 14:36 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-21 18:18 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-21 22:32 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-12-22 07:55 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-23 11:14 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2024-12-23 16:48 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-23 12:12 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2024-12-23 16:52 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine ng <ng@ng.com> - 2024-12-29 14:33 +0000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine ng <ng@ng.com> - 2025-01-03 03:43 +0000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine MightyMouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2025-01-05 18:43 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine MightyMouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2025-01-05 18:43 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-12-10 08:05 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> - 2024-12-10 10:23 +1100
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-12-11 07:28 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> - 2024-12-12 21:41 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine noel <deletethis@invalid.lan> - 2024-12-13 07:08 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2024-12-13 07:19 +1000
Re: Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> - 2024-12-16 16:39 +1000
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
| From | Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-28 21:55 +1000 |
| Subject | Why secure boot might be a good idea on your Linux machine |
| Message-ID | <lqr40qFr2liU3@mid.individual.net> |
https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/11/found-in-the-wild-the-worlds-first-unkillable-uefi-bootkit-for-linux/
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-29 07:27 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <6748e05b@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #71467 |
Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote: > https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/11/found-in-the-wild-the-worlds-first-unkillable-uefi-bootkit-for-linux/ Secure Boot has already proven insecure on Windows anyway: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/03/unkillable-uefi-malware-bypassing-secure-boot-enabled-by-unpatchable-windows-flaw/ -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-29 10:54 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <lqshl8F4aj9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71468 |
On 29/11/2024 7:27 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote: >> https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/11/found-in-the-wild-the-worlds-first-unkillable-uefi-bootkit-for-linux/ > > Secure Boot has already proven insecure on Windows anyway: > https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/03/unkillable-uefi-malware-bypassing-secure-boot-enabled-by-unpatchable-windows-flaw/ > Better than nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-11-30 17:53 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <lqvuk4FksadU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71469 |
On 29/11/2024 10:54 am, Keithr0 wrote: > On 29/11/2024 7:27 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote: >>> https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/11/found-in-the-wild-the- >>> worlds-first-unkillable-uefi-bootkit-for-linux/ >> >> Secure Boot has already proven insecure on Windows anyway: >> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/03/unkillable- >> uefi-malware-bypassing-secure-boot-enabled-by-unpatchable-windows-flaw/ >> > Better than nothing or maybe not https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/11/code-found-online-exploits-logofail-to-install-bootkitty-linux-backdoor/ Shows that Linux is susceptible to hacks just the same as any other OS. .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-01 06:43 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <674b78d6@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #71471 |
Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote: > On 29/11/2024 10:54 am, Keithr0 wrote: >> On 29/11/2024 7:27 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote: >>>> https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/11/found-in-the-wild-the- >>>> worlds-first-unkillable-uefi-bootkit-for-linux/ >>> >>> Secure Boot has already proven insecure on Windows anyway: >>> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/03/unkillable- >>> uefi-malware-bypassing-secure-boot-enabled-by-unpatchable-windows-flaw/ >>> >> Better than nothing > > or maybe not > > https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/11/code-found-online-exploits-logofail-to-install-bootkitty-linux-backdoor/ > > Shows that Linux is susceptible to hacks just the same as any other OS. Well all this is about the boot process, and this latest article is about Secure Boot in PC manufacturer's flawed UEFI code. These hacks depend on a hacker finding a way to get root access on their target machine first in order to run these exploits. Plenty of software bugs allowing that have been found in applications which run on Linux over the years, but this is about the extent of what hackers can do _after_ the Linux OS itself has been hacked. Since you're pretty stuffed once a hacker has root access anyway, Secure Boot never seemed worth the added complexity to me, but that's a matter of opinion. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-02 21:31 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <lr5k46Fi9beU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71474 |
On 1/12/2024 6:43 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote: >> On 29/11/2024 10:54 am, Keithr0 wrote: >>> On 29/11/2024 7:27 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>> Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote: >>>>> https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/11/found-in-the-wild-the- >>>>> worlds-first-unkillable-uefi-bootkit-for-linux/ >>>> >>>> Secure Boot has already proven insecure on Windows anyway: >>>> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/03/unkillable- >>>> uefi-malware-bypassing-secure-boot-enabled-by-unpatchable-windows-flaw/ >>>> >>> Better than nothing >> >> or maybe not >> >> https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/11/code-found-online-exploits-logofail-to-install-bootkitty-linux-backdoor/ >> >> Shows that Linux is susceptible to hacks just the same as any other OS. > > Well all this is about the boot process, and this latest article is > about Secure Boot in PC manufacturer's flawed UEFI code. These > hacks depend on a hacker finding a way to get root access on their > target machine first in order to run these exploits. Plenty of > software bugs allowing that have been found in applications which > run on Linux over the years, but this is about the extent of what > hackers can do _after_ the Linux OS itself has been hacked. > > Since you're pretty stuffed once a hacker has root access anyway, > Secure Boot never seemed worth the added complexity to me, but > that's a matter of opinion. > The thing about boot kits is that they are very hard to detect, and even harder to get rid of. You may never know that you've been pwned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-09 19:31 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lrno7kFg7j5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71474 |
Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote: >> On 29/11/2024 10:54 am, Keithr0 wrote: >>> On 29/11/2024 7:27 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>> Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote: >>>>> https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/11/found-in-the-wild-the- >>>>> worlds-first-unkillable-uefi-bootkit-for-linux/ >>>> Secure Boot has already proven insecure on Windows anyway: >>>> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/03/unkillable- >>>> uefi-malware-bypassing-secure-boot-enabled-by-unpatchable-windows-flaw/ >>>> >>> Better than nothing >> or maybe not >> >> https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/11/code-found-online-exploits-logofail-to-install-bootkitty-linux-backdoor/ >> >> Shows that Linux is susceptible to hacks just the same as any other OS. > Well all this is about the boot process, and this latest article is > about Secure Boot in PC manufacturer's flawed UEFI code. These > hacks depend on a hacker finding a way to get root access on their > target machine first in order to run these exploits. Plenty of > software bugs allowing that have been found in applications which > run on Linux over the years, but this is about the extent of what > hackers can do _after_ the Linux OS itself has been hacked. > > Since you're pretty stuffed once a hacker has root access anyway, > Secure Boot never seemed worth the added complexity to me, but > that's a matter of opinion. > what happens if they get root access? -- Have a nice day!.. stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-09 19:33 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <lrnrr2Fgo8rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71477 |
On 9/12/2024 6:31 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote: > Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote: >>> On 29/11/2024 10:54 am, Keithr0 wrote: >>>> On 29/11/2024 7:27 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>> Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote: >>>>>> https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/11/found-in-the-wild-the- >>>>>> worlds-first-unkillable-uefi-bootkit-for-linux/ >>>>> Secure Boot has already proven insecure on Windows anyway: >>>>> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/03/unkillable- >>>>> uefi-malware-bypassing-secure-boot-enabled-by-unpatchable-windows- >>>>> flaw/ >>>>> >>>> Better than nothing >>> or maybe not >>> >>> https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/11/code-found-online-exploits- >>> logofail-to-install-bootkitty-linux-backdoor/ >>> >>> Shows that Linux is susceptible to hacks just the same as any other OS. >> Well all this is about the boot process, and this latest article is >> about Secure Boot in PC manufacturer's flawed UEFI code. These >> hacks depend on a hacker finding a way to get root access on their >> target machine first in order to run these exploits. Plenty of >> software bugs allowing that have been found in applications which >> run on Linux over the years, but this is about the extent of what >> hackers can do _after_ the Linux OS itself has been hacked. >> >> Since you're pretty stuffed once a hacker has root access anyway, >> Secure Boot never seemed worth the added complexity to me, but >> that's a matter of opinion. >> > > what happens if they get root access? > They own the machine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-10 00:22 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <vj6qtr$dtqb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #71478 |
Keithr0 wrote on 9/12/24 8:33 pm: > On 9/12/2024 6:31 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote: >> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote: >>>> On 29/11/2024 10:54 am, Keithr0 wrote: >>>>> On 29/11/2024 7:27 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>> Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote: >>>>>>> https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/11/found-in-the-wild-the- >>>>>>> worlds-first-unkillable-uefi-bootkit-for-linux/ >>>>>> Secure Boot has already proven insecure on Windows anyway: >>>>>> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/03/unkillable- >>>>>> uefi-malware-bypassing-secure-boot-enabled-by-unpatchable-windows- >>>>>> flaw/ >>>>>> >>>>> Better than nothing >>>> or maybe not >>>> >>>> https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/11/code-found-online-exploits- >>>> logofail-to-install-bootkitty-linux-backdoor/ >>>> >>>> Shows that Linux is susceptible to hacks just the same as any other OS. >>> Well all this is about the boot process, and this latest article is >>> about Secure Boot in PC manufacturer's flawed UEFI code. These >>> hacks depend on a hacker finding a way to get root access on their >>> target machine first in order to run these exploits. Plenty of >>> software bugs allowing that have been found in applications which >>> run on Linux over the years, but this is about the extent of what >>> hackers can do _after_ the Linux OS itself has been hacked. >>> >>> Since you're pretty stuffed once a hacker has root access anyway, >>> Secure Boot never seemed worth the added complexity to me, but >>> that's a matter of opinion. >> >> what happens if they get root access? >> > They own the machine. .... until you disconnect from the Net and re-install your OS, probably. -- Daniel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-10 20:36 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <lrqjt8Fuab5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71479 |
On 9/12/2024 11:22 pm, Daniel70 wrote: > Keithr0 wrote on 9/12/24 8:33 pm: >> On 9/12/2024 6:31 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote: >>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>> Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote: >>>>> On 29/11/2024 10:54 am, Keithr0 wrote: >>>>>> On 29/11/2024 7:27 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>>> Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote: >>>>>>>> https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/11/found-in-the-wild-the- >>>>>>>> worlds-first-unkillable-uefi-bootkit-for-linux/ >>>>>>> Secure Boot has already proven insecure on Windows anyway: >>>>>>> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/03/unkillable- >>>>>>> uefi-malware-bypassing-secure-boot-enabled-by-unpatchable- >>>>>>> windows- flaw/ >>>>>>> >>>>>> Better than nothing >>>>> or maybe not >>>>> >>>>> https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/11/code-found-online- >>>>> exploits- logofail-to-install-bootkitty-linux-backdoor/ >>>>> >>>>> Shows that Linux is susceptible to hacks just the same as any other >>>>> OS. >>>> Well all this is about the boot process, and this latest article is >>>> about Secure Boot in PC manufacturer's flawed UEFI code. These >>>> hacks depend on a hacker finding a way to get root access on their >>>> target machine first in order to run these exploits. Plenty of >>>> software bugs allowing that have been found in applications which >>>> run on Linux over the years, but this is about the extent of what >>>> hackers can do _after_ the Linux OS itself has been hacked. >>>> >>>> Since you're pretty stuffed once a hacker has root access anyway, >>>> Secure Boot never seemed worth the added complexity to me, but >>>> that's a matter of opinion. >>> >>> what happens if they get root access? >>> >> They own the machine. > > .... until you disconnect from the Net and re-install your OS, probably. Unless they did via a boot kit, then even changing the disk won't help.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-10 22:05 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <vj979b$u6pg$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #71482 |
Keithr0 wrote on 10/12/24 9:36 pm: > On 9/12/2024 11:22 pm, Daniel70 wrote: >> Keithr0 wrote on 9/12/24 8:33 pm: >>> On 9/12/2024 6:31 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote: >>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>> Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote: >>>>>> On 29/11/2024 10:54 am, Keithr0 wrote: >>>>>>> On 29/11/2024 7:27 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>>>> Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote: >>>>>>>>> https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/11/found-in-the-wild-the- >>>>>>>>> worlds-first-unkillable-uefi-bootkit-for-linux/ >>>>>>>> Secure Boot has already proven insecure on Windows anyway: >>>>>>>> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/03/unkillable- >>>>>>>> uefi-malware-bypassing-secure-boot-enabled-by-unpatchable- >>>>>>>> windows- flaw/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Better than nothing >>>>>> or maybe not >>>>>> >>>>>> https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/11/code-found-online- >>>>>> exploits- logofail-to-install-bootkitty-linux-backdoor/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Shows that Linux is susceptible to hacks just the same as any >>>>>> other OS. >>>>> Well all this is about the boot process, and this latest article is >>>>> about Secure Boot in PC manufacturer's flawed UEFI code. These >>>>> hacks depend on a hacker finding a way to get root access on their >>>>> target machine first in order to run these exploits. Plenty of >>>>> software bugs allowing that have been found in applications which >>>>> run on Linux over the years, but this is about the extent of what >>>>> hackers can do _after_ the Linux OS itself has been hacked. >>>>> >>>>> Since you're pretty stuffed once a hacker has root access anyway, >>>>> Secure Boot never seemed worth the added complexity to me, but >>>>> that's a matter of opinion. >>>> >>>> what happens if they get root access? >>>> >>> They own the machine. >> >> .... until you disconnect from the Net and re-install your OS, probably. > > Unless they did via a boot kit, then even changing the disk won't help. AH!! So even deeper into the system! -- Daniel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-11 00:38 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lrquhrF1g93U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71482 |
Keithr0 wrote: > On 9/12/2024 11:22 pm, Daniel70 wrote: >> Keithr0 wrote on 9/12/24 8:33 pm: >>> On 9/12/2024 6:31 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote: >>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>> Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote: >>>>>> On 29/11/2024 10:54 am, Keithr0 wrote: >>>>>>> On 29/11/2024 7:27 am, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>>>> Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> wrote: >>>>>>>>> https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/11/found-in-the-wild-the- >>>>>>>>> worlds-first-unkillable-uefi-bootkit-for-linux/ >>>>>>>> Secure Boot has already proven insecure on Windows anyway: >>>>>>>> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/03/unkillable- >>>>>>>> uefi-malware-bypassing-secure-boot-enabled-by-unpatchable- >>>>>>>> windows- flaw/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Better than nothing >>>>>> or maybe not >>>>>> >>>>>> https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/11/code-found-online- >>>>>> exploits- logofail-to-install-bootkitty-linux-backdoor/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Shows that Linux is susceptible to hacks just the same as any >>>>>> other OS. >>>>> Well all this is about the boot process, and this latest article is >>>>> about Secure Boot in PC manufacturer's flawed UEFI code. These >>>>> hacks depend on a hacker finding a way to get root access on their >>>>> target machine first in order to run these exploits. Plenty of >>>>> software bugs allowing that have been found in applications which >>>>> run on Linux over the years, but this is about the extent of what >>>>> hackers can do _after_ the Linux OS itself has been hacked. >>>>> >>>>> Since you're pretty stuffed once a hacker has root access anyway, >>>>> Secure Boot never seemed worth the added complexity to me, but >>>>> that's a matter of opinion. >>>> >>>> what happens if they get root access? >>>> >>> They own the machine. >> >> .... until you disconnect from the Net and re-install your OS, probably. > > Unless they did via a boot kit, then even changing the disk won't help. why? is the computer itself affected somehow? -- Have a nice day!.. stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-11 07:20 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <6758b09e@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #71484 |
Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: > Keithr0 wrote: >> On 9/12/2024 11:22 pm, Daniel70 wrote: >>> Keithr0 wrote on 9/12/24 8:33 pm: >>>> On 9/12/2024 6:31 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote: >>>>> what happens if they get root access? >>>>> >>>> They own the machine. >>> >>> .... until you disconnect from the Net and re-install your OS, probably. >> >> Unless they did via a boot kit, then even changing the disk won't help. > > why? is the computer itself affected somehow? They might be able to install their own software in the PC's UEFI firmware, which would then hack into new OS installations too. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-18 09:43 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lsed4mF6ndfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71485 |
Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >> Keithr0 wrote: >>> On 9/12/2024 11:22 pm, Daniel70 wrote: >>>> Keithr0 wrote on 9/12/24 8:33 pm: >>>>> On 9/12/2024 6:31 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote: >>>>>> what happens if they get root access? >>>>>> >>>>> They own the machine. >>>> .... until you disconnect from the Net and re-install your OS, probably. >>> Unless they did via a boot kit, then even changing the disk won't help. >> why? is the computer itself affected somehow? > They might be able to install their own software in the PC's UEFI > firmware, which would then hack into new OS installations too. > I've got a PC that I can't install windows10 on. ?? it installs but then it won't boot properly. without going into a lot of detail, and putting it simply (but unkindly) it just goes 'spastic'- extremely slow, screen flashes on and off, spinning dots, keeps going back to the welcome screen, etc.,. but if I load another HD for this PC with win10 that was perfectly fine, it does the same. same if I use system restore from a good restore point. so does this mean I have a boot virus on that machine? how can I check? and if there is one how do I get rid of it? if it's not a boot virus what else could be the problem? I've tried windows repair, and it didn't fix it. also.. Linux works fine on this PC. but if there is a boot virus is Linux affected also without my knowing it? also.. the only thing that has changed on the PC is I upgraded the CPU from AMD Athlon II X3 420 Rana 45nm Technology to AMD FX-6100 Six Core CPU3.3GHzbut even if that is somehow affecting loading of restored versions of windows, it should be irrelevant for new installs, surely. -- Have a nice day!.. stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-18 09:59 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lsee2sF6rnlU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71495 |
Mighty Mouse wrote: > Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>> Keithr0 wrote: >>>> On 9/12/2024 11:22 pm, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>> Keithr0 wrote on 9/12/24 8:33 pm: >>>>>> On 9/12/2024 6:31 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote: >>>>>>> what happens if they get root access? >>>>>>> >>>>>> They own the machine. >>>>> .... until you disconnect from the Net and re-install your OS, >>>>> probably. >>>> Unless they did via a boot kit, then even changing the disk won't >>>> help. >>> why? is the computer itself affected somehow? >> They might be able to install their own software in the PC's UEFI >> firmware, which would then hack into new OS installations too. >> > > I've got a PC that I can't install windows10 on. ?? it installs but > then it won't boot properly. without going into a lot of detail, and > putting it simply (but unkindly) it just goes 'spastic'- extremely > slow, screen flashes on and off, spinning dots, keeps going back to > the welcome screen, etc.,. but if I load another HD for this PC with > win10 that was perfectly fine, it does the same. same if I use system > restore from a good restore point. so does this mean I have a boot > virus on that machine? how can I check? and if there is one how do I > get rid of it? if it's not a boot virus what else could be the > problem? I've tried windows repair, and it didn't fix it. > > also.. Linux works fine on this PC. but if there is a boot virus is > Linux affected also without my knowing it? > > also.. the only thing that has changed on the PC is I upgraded the CPU > from AMD Athlon II X3 420 Rana 45nm Technology to AMD FX-6100 Six Core > CPU3.3GHz but even if that is somehow affecting loading of restored > versions of windows, it should be irrelevant for new installs, surely. > > forgot to mention. this is the machine MB: https://www.asrock.com/MB/AMD/980DE3U3S3/index.us.asp CPU: https://www.techpowerup.com/cpu-specs/fx-6100.c827 Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 RAM: 16 Gigabytes -- Have a nice day!.. stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-18 11:32 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <6762262e@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #71495 |
Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: > Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>> Keithr0 wrote: >>>> On 9/12/2024 11:22 pm, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>> Keithr0 wrote on 9/12/24 8:33 pm: >>>>>> On 9/12/2024 6:31 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote: >>>>>>> what happens if they get root access? >>>>>>> >>>>>> They own the machine. >>>>> .... until you disconnect from the Net and re-install your OS, probably. >>>> Unless they did via a boot kit, then even changing the disk won't help. >>> why? is the computer itself affected somehow? >> They might be able to install their own software in the PC's UEFI >> firmware, which would then hack into new OS installations too. > > I've got a PC that I can't install windows10 on. ?? it installs but then > it won't boot properly. without going into a lot of detail, and putting > it simply (but unkindly) it just goes 'spastic'- extremely slow, screen > flashes on and off, spinning dots, keeps going back to the welcome > screen, etc.,. but if I load another HD for this PC with win10 that was > perfectly fine, it does the same. same if I use system restore from a > good restore point. so does this mean I have a boot virus on that > machine? Probably not. > how can I check? and if there is one how do I get rid of it? I'm not sure if that can be done reliably, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions, especially if the trouble only started after you upgraded the CPU. > if it's not a boot virus what else could be the problem? Try running Memtest86 to check the RAM didn't get damaged accidentally. Linux probably won't be using as much RAM as Win10, so it may not have reached the memory region that's faulty. > I've tried windows repair, and it didn't fix it. Did you try Safe Mode (assuming that's still around in Win10)? > also.. Linux works fine on this PC. but if there is a boot virus is > Linux affected also without my knowing it? All things are possible, but again it's unlikely. > also.. the only thing that has changed on the PC is I upgraded the CPU > from AMD Athlon II X3 420 Rana 45nm Technology to? AMD FX-6100 Six Core > CPU3.3GHzbut even if that is somehow affecting loading of restored > versions of windows, it should be irrelevant for new installs, surely. Check the BIOS setting didn't get reset or set wrongly while you were doing that, eg. RAM clock frequency. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-19 13:18 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lshe3dFlhhpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71498 |
Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>>> Keithr0 wrote: >>>>> On 9/12/2024 11:22 pm, Daniel70 wrote: >>>>>> Keithr0 wrote on 9/12/24 8:33 pm: >>>>>>> On 9/12/2024 6:31 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote: >>>>>>>> what happens if they get root access? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> They own the machine. >>>>>> .... until you disconnect from the Net and re-install your OS, probably. >>>>> Unless they did via a boot kit, then even changing the disk won't help. >>>> why? is the computer itself affected somehow? >>> They might be able to install their own software in the PC's UEFI >>> firmware, which would then hack into new OS installations too. >> I've got a PC that I can't install windows10 on. ?? it installs but then >> it won't boot properly. without going into a lot of detail, and putting >> it simply (but unkindly) it just goes 'spastic'- extremely slow, screen >> flashes on and off, spinning dots, keeps going back to the welcome >> screen, etc.,. but if I load another HD for this PC with win10 that was >> perfectly fine, it does the same. same if I use system restore from a >> good restore point. so does this mean I have a boot virus on that >> machine? > Probably not. > >> how can I check? and if there is one how do I get rid of it? > I'm not sure if that can be done reliably, but I wouldn't jump to > conclusions, especially if the trouble only started after you > upgraded the CPU. > >> if it's not a boot virus what else could be the problem? > Try running Memtest86 to check the RAM didn't get damaged > accidentally. Linux probably won't be using as much RAM as Win10, > so it may not have reached the memory region that's faulty. I forgot that I had installed brand new ram, 16Gb 2x8. I ran memtest, and the computer turned off after a few minutes. so in case that ram was faulty I put in 8 gig (2x4) of RAM, and set up a sceen to monitor memtest. it ran for 21 minutes then the computer turned off again! you can see here https://auslink.info/video/memtest.mp4 . I'm sure this is not supposed to happen. one other thing, the power supply in this PC failed, it was emitting a 'hissing' noise and burnt smell, and I replaced it with a brand new one. it's only since then that these problems have started. could it be that the motherboard is faulty? >> I've tried windows repair, and it didn't fix it. > Did you try Safe Mode (assuming that's still around in Win10)? no, but I will. stupid M$ has made it more difficult to get into safe mode. it used to be that you just pressed F8 at boot. >> also.. Linux works fine on this PC. but if there is a boot virus is >> Linux affected also without my knowing it? > All things are possible, but again it's unlikely. > >> also.. the only thing that has changed on the PC is I upgraded the CPU >> from AMD Athlon II X3 420 Rana 45nm Technology to AMD FX-6100 Six Core >> CPU3.3GHz but even if that is somehow affecting loading of restored >> versions of windows, it should be irrelevant for new installs, surely. > Check the BIOS setting didn't get reset or set wrongly while you > were doing that, eg. RAM clock frequency. > everything is set to auto ................................................. This PC: MB: https://www.asrock.com/MB/AMD/980DE3U3S3/index.us.asp CPU: https://www.techpowerup.com/cpu-specs/fx-6100.c827 Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 RAM: 16 Gigabytes -- Have a nice day!.. stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-19 13:34 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <67639438@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #71499 |
Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: > Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>> how can I check? and if there is one how do I get rid of it? >> I'm not sure if that can be done reliably, but I wouldn't jump to >> conclusions, especially if the trouble only started after you >> upgraded the CPU. >> >>> if it's not a boot virus what else could be the problem? >> Try running Memtest86 to check the RAM didn't get damaged >> accidentally. Linux probably won't be using as much RAM as Win10, >> so it may not have reached the memory region that's faulty. > > I forgot that I had installed brand new ram, 16Gb 2x8. I ran memtest, > and the computer turned off after a few minutes. so in case that ram was > faulty I put in 8 gig (2x4) of RAM, and set up a sceen to monitor > memtest. it ran for 21 minutes then the computer turned off again! you > can see here? https://auslink.info/video/memtest.mp4 . I'm sure this is > not supposed to happen. Yes, it's supposed to keep testing forever. That's certainly a hardware problem. > one other thing, the power supply in this PC failed, it was emitting a > 'hissing' noise and burnt smell, and I replaced it with a brand new one. > it's only since then that these problems have started. could it be that > the motherboard is faulty? Yep, though it could be just one RAM slot so you might try moving the RAM sticks about. It might also be that the CPU wasn't aligned quite right when you replaced it. >>> I've tried windows repair, and it didn't fix it. >> Did you try Safe Mode (assuming that's still around in Win10)? > > no, but I will. stupid M$ has made it more difficult to get into safe > mode. it used to be that you just pressed F8 at boot. With Memtest86 failing then that means the problem isn't in Windows anyway. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-19 17:57 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lshuf7FnvgmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71500 |
Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>>> how can I check? and if there is one how do I get rid of it? >>> I'm not sure if that can be done reliably, but I wouldn't jump to >>> conclusions, especially if the trouble only started after you >>> upgraded the CPU. >>> >>>> if it's not a boot virus what else could be the problem? >>> Try running Memtest86 to check the RAM didn't get damaged >>> accidentally. Linux probably won't be using as much RAM as Win10, >>> so it may not have reached the memory region that's faulty. >> I forgot that I had installed brand new ram, 16Gb 2x8. I ran memtest, >> and the computer turned off after a few minutes. so in case that ram was >> faulty I put in 8 gig (2x4) of RAM, and set up a sceen to monitor >> memtest. it ran for 21 minutes then the computer turned off again! you >> can see here https://auslink.info/video/memtest.mp4 . I'm sure this is >> not supposed to happen. > Yes, it's supposed to keep testing forever. That's certainly a > hardware problem. > >> one other thing, the power supply in this PC failed, it was emitting a >> 'hissing' noise and burnt smell, and I replaced it with a brand new one. >> it's only since then that these problems have started. could it be that >> the motherboard is faulty? > Yep, though it could be just one RAM slot so you might try moving > the RAM sticks about. ok > It might also be that the CPU wasn't aligned > quite right when you replaced it. no, i installed it very carefully. > >>>> I've tried windows repair, and it didn't fix it. >>> Did you try Safe Mode (assuming that's still around in Win10)? >> no, but I will. stupid M$ has made it more difficult to get into safe >> mode. it used to be that you just pressed F8 at boot. > With Memtest86 failing then that means the problem isn't in Windows > anyway. > you're right. I will put the old CPU back, and reinstall windows. if the problem is still extant I'll junk this motherboard. -- Have a nice day!.. stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-12-19 18:22 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <lshvstFo7ftU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71501 |
Mighty Mouse wrote: > Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>>>> Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>>>> Mighty Mouse <"squeak!"@thecheesefactory.com> wrote: >>>>> how can I check? and if there is one how do I get rid of it? >>>> I'm not sure if that can be done reliably, but I wouldn't jump to >>>> conclusions, especially if the trouble only started after you >>>> upgraded the CPU. >>>> >>>>> if it's not a boot virus what else could be the problem? >>>> Try running Memtest86 to check the RAM didn't get damaged >>>> accidentally. Linux probably won't be using as much RAM as Win10, >>>> so it may not have reached the memory region that's faulty. >>> I forgot that I had installed brand new ram, 16Gb 2x8. I ran memtest, >>> and the computer turned off after a few minutes. so in case that ram >>> was >>> faulty I put in 8 gig (2x4) of RAM, and set up a sceen to monitor >>> memtest. it ran for 21 minutes then the computer turned off again! you >>> can see here https://auslink.info/video/memtest.mp4 . I'm sure this is >>> not supposed to happen. >> Yes, it's supposed to keep testing forever. That's certainly a >> hardware problem. >> >>> one other thing, the power supply in this PC failed, it was emitting a >>> 'hissing' noise and burnt smell, and I replaced it with a brand new >>> one. >>> it's only since then that these problems have started. could it be that >>> the motherboard is faulty? >> Yep, though it could be just one RAM slot so you might try moving >> the RAM sticks about. > > ok the RAM was running as dual channel in A2/B2 slots. I'll put it in A1/B1 and run memtest again. btw.. memtest is now in the BIOS as a boot option, and I can't see anyway to remove it. ? > >> It might also be that the CPU wasn't aligned >> quite right when you replaced it. > > no, i installed it very carefully. > >> >>>>> I've tried windows repair, and it didn't fix it. >>>> Did you try Safe Mode (assuming that's still around in Win10)? >>> no, but I will. stupid M$ has made it more difficult to get into safe >>> mode. it used to be that you just pressed F8 at boot. >> With Memtest86 failing then that means the problem isn't in Windows >> anyway. >> > > you're right. I will put the old CPU back, and reinstall windows. if > the problem is still extant I'll junk this motherboard. > -- Have a nice day!.. stay sane, be happy, and enjoy living.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | aus.computers
csiph-web