Discussion:
Blob-free OpenBSD kernel needed
c***@Safe-mail.net
2015-06-06 00:11:17 UTC
Permalink
Hello,
It has come to my attention that OpenBSD does not included non-free drivers, dubbed "blobs" - which is excellent. However, you still include non-free firmware in the kernel and some packages.

With spying revelations, it is well-known that non-free firmware can contain backdoors. ( just one recent example: http://www.wired.com/2015/02/nsa-firmware-hacking/ )

I would feel a lot safer if the kernel and packages were fully free, containing no non-free drivers nor non-free "firmware".

At the very least provide a separate branch of known "clean" 100% free packages and kernel. For example the non-free athn and rsu firmware are currently in the repository, and I would suspect other non-free firmware is into the kernel.

Offering a stripped kernel and separating those few packages only increases the security of OpenBSD.

Also, We can probably find replacements for most all the non-free firmware. Taking for example this replacement for some of the athn firmwares: https://github.com/qca/open-ath9k-htc-firmware

All we'd need is a driver to load those instead of the blobs.


Thanks for your time and consideration!
Theo de Raadt
2015-06-06 00:30:33 UTC
Permalink
> Hello,

Hello Mr. Whoever you are,

> It has come to my attention that OpenBSD does not included non-free
> drivers, dubbed "blobs" - which is excellent. However, you still
> include non-free firmware in the kernel and some packages.

That is false.

The kernel includes a few minor firmwares which are FREELY PROVIDED
by the vendors of that hardware, since those vendors chose to not put
those firmware onto ROMS on their cards. Those firmwares are FREE.
Please indicate a single vendor who wants MONEY for that firmware.
They don't want money. They want people to use the hardware which
they skipped on adding a ROM to. That is why the firmware is free.

A few other firmwares are slightly less free. Meaning they are free
for money, but they try to stipulate subtle rules we do not want to
impact the freedom of our source tree with. To solve this specific
problem, a few creative developers in the group have found a way to
package those up and make them available on the internet. OpenBSD
has a tool built in which will download those, so that our base source
tree remains full of freedom.

Those are treated the same. If the hardware exists, we load it onto
the hardware.

The firmwares are NOT RUN BY THE HOST CPU.

They are running on the network or other such hardware which you
foolishly purchased!

> With spying revelations, it is well-known that non-free firmware can
> contain backdoors. ( just one recent example:
> http://www.wired.com/2015/02/nsa-firmware-hacking/ )

You are speaking in riddles. Non-free firmware can contain backdoors
just as well.

99% of the hardware we run on contains firmwares *IN ROM*. Those
could contain backdoors. You use such machines. You sent your email
from a machine containing ROM firmwares. Quite often, those are not
in true ROM, either, but rewriteable using tricks that the vendors
know, but which we don't know.

> I would feel a lot safer if the kernel and packages were fully free,
> containing no non-free drivers nor non-free "firmware".

That's nice. Then don't run hardware which needs those firmwares.

See, your problems are solved so easily!

> At the very least provide a separate branch of known "clean" 100%
> free packages and kernel. For example the non-free athn and rsu
> firmware are currently in the repository, and I would suspect other
> non-free firmware is into the kernel.

You are so full of BS!

The firmware for the athn driver is NOT IN THE REPOSITORY!

For USB devices, the driver needs at least version 1.1 of the following
firmware files, which are loaded when an interface is attached:

/etc/firmware/athn-ar7010
/etc/firmware/athn-ar7010-11
/etc/firmware/athn-ar9271

A prepackaged version of the firmware can be installed using
fw_update(1).

There is Makefile somewhere in the ports tree which KNOWS where to find
that firmware on the internet. That's it. Your definition of free is
so clouded!

Same with the rsu firmware. WHERE in the source repository do you see
the bytes that came from the vendor?

> Offering a stripped kernel and separating those few packages only
> increases the security of OpenBSD.

That is BS. If you don't want to run those firmware, don't buy and insert
those particular USB devices.

> Also, We can probably find replacements for most all the non-free
> firmware.

You are quite a persistant idiot. Find replacement of a firmware that
a vendor wrote for their specific undocumented chip; which runs on the
custom processor and hardware on the athn USB device? That runs on the
rsu hardware, which is probably some kind of crappy vendor-modified ARM
or MIPS or 8085 derived cpu attached to a blob of Verilog logic they
designed in their own lab?

You don't know jack shit about computers or electronics, that much
is obvious.

> Taking for example this replacement for some of the athn
> firmwares: https://github.com/qca/open-ath9k-htc-firmware

That is not a "device firmware". Those Atheros devices contain no
cpu, only gate array logic to do their work. As a result, a driver
has been written which runs on the NATIVE HOST CPU, meaning, inside
Linux or OpenBSD. Same as our ath(4) driver.

That is a non-firmware designed chipset.

Once again you show that you don't know shit.

> All we'd need is a driver to load those instead of the blobs.

Good luck with that buckeroo. Looking forward to your complete
rewrite of the Broadcom NetXtreme II 10/100/Gigabit firmware, by
the way. There are about 25 versions of this product, and they
have 4-6 MIPS 64-bit cpus running different firmwares on them.
Total size, around 260K. It's like a bunch of independent operating
systems running on propriety hardware!

Please remember to send your new firmware source for that hardware
nicely indented; we like the tabs + 4-space mode described in our
style(9) page!

Fact is, modern hardware simply "is what it is". Telling people
that OpenBSD should not run on such hardware is a gigantic illusion.

You come off like a child, demanding freeeeeeedom.

I hope your next mail goes straight to Linus Torvalds. He is also
encouraging people to use the hardware they accidentally bought in
exactly the same way!! The nerve of him.
Артур Истомин
2015-06-06 14:30:56 UTC
Permalink
Your rant is cogent. But if so, why OpenBSD does not supply
microcode updates from Intel/AMD? There are tons of security fixes.
Elias Diem
2015-06-09 16:48:44 UTC
Permalink
Hi

On 2015-06-06, Артур Истомин wrote:

> Your rant is cogent. But if so, why OpenBSD does not supply
> microcode updates from Intel/AMD? There are tons of security fixes.

I just wonder: Is there really such microcode available that
is open source?

--
Greetings
Elias
Martin Schröder
2015-06-09 18:13:12 UTC
Permalink
2015-06-09 18:48 GMT+02:00 Elias Diem <***@webconect.ch>:
> I just wonder: Is there really such microcode available that
> is open source?

No.
Артур Истомин
2015-06-13 10:40:13 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:48:44PM +0200, Elias Diem wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 2015-06-06, Артур Истомин wrote:
>
> > Your rant is cogent. But if so, why OpenBSD does not supply
> > microcode updates from Intel/AMD? There are tons of security fixes.
>
> I just wonder: Is there really such microcode available that
> is open source?

It is blob that runs on processor, not host machine [0]. Not opensourced,
but Teo's rant exactly about such blobs.

This is double standard. Some blobs are valid for Teo, others (which
fix tons processor's bugs, including security bugs) - no.

[0] https://wiki.debian.org/Microcode
Stuart Henderson
2015-06-13 23:54:27 UTC
Permalink
On 2015-06-06, Артур Истомин <***@yandex.ru> wrote:
> Your rant is cogent. But if so, why OpenBSD does not supply
> microcode updates from Intel/AMD? There are tons of security fixes.

Isn't that the bios's area? (don't run libreboot if you want those...)
Артур Истомин
2015-06-14 10:17:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 11:54:27PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2015-06-06, Артур Истомин <***@yandex.ru> wrote:
> > Your rant is cogent. But if so, why OpenBSD does not supply
> > microcode updates from Intel/AMD? There are tons of security fixes.
>
> Isn't that the bios's area? (don't run libreboot if you want those...)

Yes it is. But BIOS update is like SOHO routers' firmware updates
They are either non-existent or issued short time (year or two).
By the way, I've never seen mention of the CPU's microcode updates
in BIOS updates' changelogs (if they, changelogs, exist at all).

In fact, all I wanted was to get an authoritative answer why OpenBSD
does not supply CPU's microcode updates. I suspect it is not in
priority list, but may be there is more tricky/interesting reason!
...but even Ted Unangst (second in thread and exactly after my
answer why not!) offers to send him patches with free microcodes,
what the stupid idiots..
Michał Markowski
2015-06-15 14:32:25 UTC
Permalink
2015-06-14 12:17 GMT+02:00 Артур Истомин <***@yandex.ru>:
> By the way, I've never seen mention of the CPU's microcode updates
> in BIOS updates' changelogs (if they, changelogs, exist at all).

Here you are (example from
https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/24877/Intel-Server-Board-S2600CP-Family-Firmware-update-package-for-IDA-OFU-EFI-and-WinPE-
Release.txt):

> Microcode update versions:
> Intel(R) Xeon processor E5-4600/2600/2400 series C0 stepping: 0x00000513 CPUID = 0x206D5
> Intel(R) Xeon processor E5-4600/2600/2400 series C1 stepping: 0x00000619 CPUID = 0x206D6
> Intel(R) Xeon processor E5-4600/2600/2400 series C2 stepping: 0x00000710 CPUID = 0x206D7
> Intel(R) Xeon processor E5-4600/2600/2400 v2 series C0/C1 stepping: 0x00000416 CPUID = 0x306e4

--
Michał Markowski
Michel Behr
2015-06-06 03:44:55 UTC
Permalink
Countryguy, I guess my challenge would be this: If you consire all
this easy and important, why don't you start right away implementing on
those ideas and share the links with the results with everyone? (This
is what I say to myself every time I think about something on the lines of
your message. That is, it's not something to write about, or to
suggest, but to get done. If it's good and relevant to you, start working
on it, it's all BSD - maybe other people would follow you). I guess that's
why projects like OpenBSD deserve respect: they are not just preaching the
importance of security, they are actually working and building an OS
consistent with this. And they are working on that for a looong time.

So, the best "constructive critic" IMHO is 1) provide better code; or 2)
fork. What will it be? "Nah, just had this great important revolutionary
idea that I thought would change reality." Thanx, but... It's harder than
this, YOU need to WORK on your idea, A LOT, implement it, ask for guidance
from other people, make it better... Takes a good load of stamina.

If you want HW freedom, I think the viable way is this:
https://www.crowdsupply.com/purism/librem-15#products-top

Don't forget to cryptograph all your messages, all your data, making sure
it goes encrypted end to end always.

Cheers!


On Friday, June 5, 2015, <***@safe-mail.net> wrote:

> Hello,
> It has come to my attention that OpenBSD does not included non-free
> drivers, dubbed "blobs" - which is excellent. However, you still include
> non-free firmware in the kernel and some packages.
>
> With spying revelations, it is well-known that non-free firmware can
> contain backdoors. ( just one recent example:
> http://www.wired.com/2015/02/nsa-firmware-hacking/ )
>
> I would feel a lot safer if the kernel and packages were fully free,
> containing no non-free drivers nor non-free "firmware".
>
> At the very least provide a separate branch of known "clean" 100% free
> packages and kernel. For example the non-free athn and rsu firmware are
> currently in the repository, and I would suspect other non-free firmware is
> into the kernel.
>
> Offering a stripped kernel and separating those few packages only
> increases the security of OpenBSD.
>
> Also, We can probably find replacements for most all the non-free
> firmware. Taking for example this replacement for some of the athn
> firmwares: https://github.com/qca/open-ath9k-htc-firmware
>
> All we'd need is a driver to load those instead of the blobs.
>
>
> Thanks for your time and consideration!
Stefan Sperling
2015-06-06 08:06:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 12:44:55AM -0300, Michel Behr wrote:
> If you want HW freedom, I think the viable way is this:
> https://www.crowdsupply.com/purism/librem-15#products-top

Nice try but I don't think countrygeek would be happy with this machine.

"""
What About the BIOS and firmware?

Though the bootloader, Linux kernel, GNU OS, and all software
applications are completely free/libre software without any binary
blobs, the BIOS which does use free/libre and open source coreboot, does
include a binary from Intel, called FSP.
"""
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
2015-06-06 08:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Stefan Sperling said:
> On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 12:44:55AM -0300, Michel Behr wrote:
> > If you want HW freedom, I think the viable way is this:
> > https://www.crowdsupply.com/purism/librem-15#products-top
>
> Nice try but I don't think countrygeek would be happy with this machine.
>
> """
> What About the BIOS and firmware?
>
> Though the bootloader, Linux kernel, GNU OS, and all software
> applications are completely free/libre software without any binary
> blobs, the BIOS which does use free/libre and open source coreboot, does
> include a binary from Intel, called FSP.
> """

They admit that their hardware has vendors' firmware as well:

| There are also hardware components, like the HD or SSD, that are
| flashable, and therefore upgradeable, but that currently run firmware
| that is not yet freed.

--
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
L.R. D.S.
2015-06-10 12:14:19 UTC
Permalink
> If you want HW freedom, I think the viable way is this:
> https://www.crowdsupply.com/purism/librem-15#products-top

Please, don't buy this crapbook. We already have discussed it on this mailing list:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=142240878031170&w=2
Stefan Sperling
2015-06-06 07:51:57 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 08:11:17PM -0400, ***@Safe-mail.net wrote:
> Hello,
> It has come to my attention that OpenBSD does not included non-free drivers, dubbed "blobs" - which is excellent. However, you still include non-free firmware in the kernel and some packages.
>
> With spying revelations, it is well-known that non-free firmware can contain backdoors.

Yes, and apart from firmware, the hardware can contain backdoors, too.
So just don't use firmware and hardware made by vendors you don't trust.
Instead use firmware and hardware from a vendor you can trust.

Oh, there is no vendor you can trust?
Well, go fix that problem then. Build your own open hardware community or
company. I'd be happy to use hardware that works, is affordable, and aligns
with your ideals. I might even write a driver for it since being fully open
you'll be providing docs which make my job much easier (because usually
nobody gives me docs).
Ted Unangst
2015-06-13 22:01:53 UTC
Permalink
Артур Истомин wrote:
> Your rant is cogent. But if so, why OpenBSD does not supply
> microcode updates from Intel/AMD? There are tons of security fixes.

Are they free? Send a patch.
Gareth Nelson
2015-06-13 23:50:47 UTC
Permalink
To the OP: http://www.libertybsd.net/

---
“Lanie, I’m going to print more printers. Lots more printers. One for
everyone. That’s worth going to jail for. That’s worth anything.” -
Printcrime by Cory Doctrow

Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Ted Unangst <***@tedunangst.com> wrote:

> Артур Истомин wrote:
> > Your rant is cogent. But if so, why OpenBSD does not supply
> > microcode updates from Intel/AMD? There are tons of security fixes.
>
> Are they free? Send a patch.
Артур Истомин
2015-06-14 09:40:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 06:01:53PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> Артур Истомин wrote:
> > Your rant is cogent. But if so, why OpenBSD does not supply
> > microcode updates from Intel/AMD? There are tons of security fixes.
>
> Are they free? Send a patch.

Don't be so lame before answering, open my next email, there is
double "patch": for your stupid answer and for your idiotic behavior
in correspondence.
Mihai Popescu
2015-06-14 07:17:08 UTC
Permalink
I got the idea of this post, finally: one guy lacking basic knowledge
pops in and talks in confusion about some non-free parts inside
OpenBSD's kernel. Few threads more and another one is posting a
suggestion of liberation. Cheap ads.

I am convinced now the "free" idea got distorted reaching the boundary
of paranoia.

For the OP: Was openssl able to satisfy you because it was free, open,
source code available, GPL sexy version on? Was it free of bugs,
trojans, backdoors, etc?

A time will come when folks will appreciate quality code and people
behind it. Nah, I really don't think so!
Loading...