Just about every Windows and Linux device vulnerable to new LogoFAIL firmware attack::UEFIs booting Windows and Linux devices can be hacked by malicious logo images.

  • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    97
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Every device booting from UEFI is vulnerable. It’s neither a Windows nor Linux issue, it’s UEFI.

    Because UEFI has Code-execution capability before OS loads. In this case it’s for the logo

    • setsubyou@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s not related to Windows or Linux, but as the article notes, Apple devices that use UEFI are not vulnerable (and current ones don’t use it anymore and therefore aren’t vulnerable either), so I guess that’s where the “Windows or Linux” comes from.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        And I can install FreeBSD or OpenBSD on a non-Apple machine, and it will have the same security issue.

        The article is written inaccurately. The issue is that the industry-standard pre-OS-load firmware patterns and interfaces (BIOS/EFI/UEFI) are vulnerable. Apple uses nonstandard/highly customized hardware, firmware, and software (because they’re more or less completely vertically integrated), and their custom stuff doesn’t have the same flaw due to that customization.

      • XenGi@lemmy.chaos.berlin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        There are more OS’ on PC then Windows and Linux. So they should really just say PCs running UEFI. Any PC running a different firmware like core boot or libreboot is not affected. Apple devices are not vulnerable because they don’t use UEFI. Apple doesn’t do the U(nified) bit and built their own EFI.

  • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    11 months ago

    Can anyone explain to me if this is an actual risk outside a highly controlled environment? AFAIK, it’s a pretty non-casual thing to change the UEFI boot logo, so wouldn’t that make this pretty hard to actually pull off?

  • YodaDaCoda@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    11 months ago

    I want my computer to run an open-source BIOS/UEFI but the set of systems supported by projects like Libreboot is unfortunately rather limited.

      • YodaDaCoda@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Each board has to be added manually, I presume they all have intricacies around initialising hardware and it seems most of that is kept in binary blobs and I don’t really understand I just wish it was like openwrt and worked anywhere

  • 0x0@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Another instance of Let’s replace something that’s been working for ages with something worse but shiny.

    • cbarrick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      What are you going on about?

      Do you mean BIOS versus UEFI? That ship sailed over a decade ago. And I don’t think anyone actually believes that plain BIOS is superior in any way to UEFI.

  • fosforus@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    UEFI is such a disaster. I still sometimes use legacy boot and notice that I miss none of the features UEFI gives me. And still I go for UEFI because it’s shiny and new. Guess I’m a disaster too.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Hundreds of Windows and Linux computer models from virtually all hardware makers are vulnerable to a new attack that executes malicious firmware early in the boot-up sequence, a feat that allows infections that are nearly impossible to detect or remove using current defense mechanisms.

    The attack—dubbed LogoFAIL by the researchers who devised it—is notable for the relative ease in carrying it out, the breadth of both consumer- and enterprise-grade models that are susceptible, and the high level of control it gains over them.

    LogoFAIL is a constellation of two dozen newly discovered vulnerabilities that have lurked for years, if not decades, in Unified Extensible Firmware Interfaces responsible for booting modern devices that run Windows or Linux.

    The participating companies comprise nearly the entirety of the x64 and ARM CPU ecosystem, starting with UEFI suppliers AMI, Insyde, and Phoenix (sometimes still called IBVs or independent BIOS vendors); device manufacturers such as Lenovo, Dell, and HP; and the makers of the CPUs that go inside the devices, usually Intel, AMD or designers of ARM CPUs.

    As its name suggests, LogoFAIL involves logos, specifically those of the hardware seller that are displayed on the device screen early in the boot process, while the UEFI is still running.

    LogoFAIL is a newly discovered set of high-impact security vulnerabilities affecting different image parsing libraries used in the system firmware by various vendors during the device boot process.


    The original article contains 663 words, the summary contains 232 words. Saved 65%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!