he remarks that the software only checks the validity of the downloaded file using the ancient CRC32 hash that isn’t considered cryptographically secure anymore
I have to respect the researcher for his incredibly charitable wording here. CRC32 is not even remotely crypto. That’s never been its purpose, and using it for digital signing is patently insane!
I fear I would have had a much shorter temper after what he’s been through, and yet here he is keeping his cool and his criticism constructive. Good on him.
Although it is true that they now fully use HTTPS, the claim about signature verification is untrue; they only perform a CRC-32 check on the downloaded executable, which is not cryptographically secure.
A drug dealer with a heavily armed escort delivers a package of white powder. New problem: is it cocaine, cleaning detergent, anthrax, or some mixture of the former?
I suppose if the only way to obtain the patch were through an automated download from the AMD website, the authentication through the site certificate would be better than nothing. But this is a security patch, and I think the researcher is right in pointing out that the bar needs to be higher?
My version of questioning this is if the same source is providing both the file and the hash, does it matter how hard it is to fake the hash? It could just generate a new hash for the fake file, couldn’t it?
Researcher commenting on the patch:
I have to respect the researcher for his incredibly charitable wording here. CRC32 is not even remotely crypto. That’s never been its purpose, and using it for digital signing is patently insane!
I fear I would have had a much shorter temper after what he’s been through, and yet here he is keeping his cool and his criticism constructive. Good on him.
This is the wording from the blog post. Tom’s Hardware just rephrased it very poorly. (see e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1ixgas1/articles_from_tomshardwarecom_should_be_banned/)
Do you really need signing if you’re using HTTPS though?
Lots of downvotes but no actual answer to your question.
I assume it’s in case some third parties redistribute the binaries so end users can still check them? Mirrors, internal IT update mechanisms, idk
HTTPS is privacy in transit. It has no say into what’s being downloaded.
A drug dealer with a heavily armed escort delivers a package of white powder. New problem: is it cocaine, cleaning detergent, anthrax, or some mixture of the former?
I suppose if the only way to obtain the patch were through an automated download from the AMD website, the authentication through the site certificate would be better than nothing. But this is a security patch, and I think the researcher is right in pointing out that the bar needs to be higher?
My version of questioning this is if the same source is providing both the file and the hash, does it matter how hard it is to fake the hash? It could just generate a new hash for the fake file, couldn’t it?