TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Supermicro hardware weaknesses let researchers backdoor an IBM cloud server

84 点作者 bauc大约 6 年前

9 条评论

Twirrim大约 6 年前
There&#x27;s a good talk on securing bare metal cloud servers against such attacks, that was given at B-Sides in Portland, by two respected security people who worked on securing bare metal cloud infrastructure for one cloud provider: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=PEVVRkd-wPM" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=PEVVRkd-wPM</a><p>Boiled down it comes to: Trust absolutely nothing. When a customer finishes with a server, wipe absolutely everything, re-flash every single bit of firmware on every single device in the machine, and <i>don&#x27;t</i> use the standard flashing mechanisms to do so. It&#x27;s worth a listen&#x2F;watch.
jlgaddis大约 6 年前
&gt; <i>This indicated that the servers&#x27; BMC firmware was not re-flashed during the server reclamation process.</i><p>I&#x27;m not surprised. Unless you pay for their &quot;enterprisey&quot; datacenter management products (which are still relatively new), it&#x27;s a PITA to perform BIOS and BMC firmware updates. Additionally, Supermicro specifically recommends that you <i>DO NOT</i> flash the firmware unless you are experiencing issues that a new version is suppose to fix -- unlike pretty much every other vendor (like Dell, who makes it fairly easy to do so).
评论 #19257237 未加载
cmurf大约 6 年前
Could someone speak to the write endurance of BMC flash, vs whatever flash BIOS&#x2F;UEFI lives in, vs NVRAM where now certain boot parameters are stored for persistence? Is it a total non-concern? It&#x27;s not a user replaceable part.
rbanffy大约 6 年前
It&#x27;s a bit shocking that the people who develop the firmware for these embedded computers is not more concerned with their security. I understand you are not supposed to attach them to untrusted networks, but can we really call any network trusted these days?<p>Do people still teach about the Maginot Line in schools?
评论 #19256356 未加载
评论 #19256736 未加载
评论 #19257591 未加载
评论 #19256303 未加载
Zenst大约 6 年前
This highlights how the sterilization process many cloud providers (IBM in this instance) have is not cleaning out every nook and cranny.<p>They should, audit every bit of firmware (indeed it&#x27;s odd how the researchers changed one bit in the BMC firmware and no checksum flagged it up on boot) and whilst this is daunting, it isn&#x27;t that hard as they just have to compare and verify it is the same as the known safe image. Sure they could blindly reflash, but then they would miss any attempted expliotations and equally shorted the life of the hardware by increasing the odds of the flash memory failure.<p>Whilst people see BMC&#x27;s as one avenue, a server&#x2F;pc has many components, all with their own firmware and in many cases, own CPU. Be that a network card, graphics card and even keyboards and mice (though the later, not so much a factor in server environments, still a consideration).<p>Security is and always will be a mindset. You need to think like somebody who wants to break into your environment, and then counter those ways. But so many avenues. Imagine your sat at your desk as an administrator and one morning you get a nice shiny, cool top of the range keyboard sent, dressed up as a gift. How many would think, cool, plug it in and feel all fuzzy? How many would audit the firmware on that keyboard? How many would question the random gift at every level?<p>I&#x27;m sure IBM are not the only ones who would fall foul of this avenue of BMC exploitation, but I&#x27;m disappointed that for me, basic sanity checks in their sanitisation process to decommission and recommission a server are being overlooked.<p>Still, when you hire a car - do they audit the cars management engine firmware? Do they erase previous BT and WIFI connections stored on the radio? Well, from my experience - they don&#x27;t.<p>Remember - you can pay an expert all the money in the World, but do check their work.
评论 #19257687 未加载
jfindley大约 6 年前
Is there any chance they have stumbled upon the same weakness that Bloomberg tried to report[0]?<p>The industry at large has been pretty sceptical of Bloomberg&#x27;s claims, and rightly so, but what if they just got the details wrong and it was this (or similar) vulnerability in the BMC software, rather than a dedicated spy chip, that they meant to write about?<p>0: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bloomberg.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;features&#x2F;2018-10-04&#x2F;the-big-hack-how-china-used-a-tiny-chip-to-infiltrate-america-s-top-companies" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bloomberg.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;features&#x2F;2018-10-04&#x2F;the-big-h...</a>
评论 #19255841 未加载
londons_explore大约 6 年前
The article looks written to hurt supermicro here.<p>It looks like the blame squarely lies with IBM (for not correctly resetting the BMC between users of the machine), or Intel (for a poor design which allows this in the first place)
paulfurtado大约 6 年前
I&#x27;m a little curious why the BMC hardware is even exposed to the customer at all. Is it provided as a feature or is this just an oversight? Can&#x27;t they just hide all of this hardware from the customer&#x27;s OS?
评论 #19256926 未加载
评论 #19256765 未加载
wyldfire大约 6 年前
Does this vindicate Bloomberg or is it a different BMC vulnerability?
评论 #19256036 未加载
评论 #19255762 未加载