• panny 7 days ago |
    >Bad news: Dell is posting unsigned update executables to their website labeled “critical” which then fail to install due to the good news

    If I were a hacker with no access to the signing keys, I'd probably label my updates as critical too, so you would try to find a way around the update signing.

    • Retr0id 7 days ago |
      If I were a hacker in the same situation I'd keep looking for a more realistic strategy.
      • jagged-chisel 7 days ago |
        Does anyone seriously think that attackers won’t try every single potential avenue regardless of how “realistic” it seems?
        • Retr0id 7 days ago |
          Yes. I wouldn't be burning write access to Dell's update servers on something so unlikely to achieve an objective.
      • raincole 7 days ago |
        Unless it's some crazy 4D chess and the hackers are trying to distract Dell's security team while they are deploying another real attack.
    • SoftTalker 7 days ago |
      But posting unsigned updates (if you somehow found a way to do that) would set off alarms in about 10 seconds, as we can see by this thread.
    • 0xDEAFBEAD 7 days ago |
      So basically you're targeting a tiny fraction of power users who are capable and motivated to find and exploit a vulnerability on their own machine which bypasses update signing.

      I think you'll find more bang for your malicious buck elsewhere.

      • saghm 7 days ago |
        So wouldn't this logic also apply to updates that are signed with an invalid signature? And at that point, it sounds like you're saying that once something is signed and distributed, no one will ever try to compromise that and you're free and clear for the rest of time, which seems...dubious.
        • 0xDEAFBEAD 7 days ago |
          My mental model is that requiring updates to be signed delivers a lot of security bang for your buck. Do you disagree?

          An attacker can still steal the private key, or identify a flaw in the signature checking code. It looks like there are a variety of other, more constrained attacks: https://theupdateframework.io/docs/security/#attacks-and-wea... But overall, it seems to me that you can make an attacker's life considerably more difficult, for a comparatively small effort.

          • saghm 7 days ago |
            I don't disagree with everything you said, but I don't see how "therefore, you don't need to worry about a critical update without a signature" follows. The reason that it provides a lot of value is specifically because it helps you notice things like what's going on now so you can avoid installing unsigned updates.
    • nephanth 5 days ago |
      If I were a security engineer/pentester, I might post unsigned "updates" that automatically alert us if they ever get installed
  • likeabatterycar 7 days ago |
    Or the upload to their CDN was truncated or corrupted, and the signature check worked as designed.

    But let's not let an opportunity to paint Dell as some evil yet incompetent corporation slip through our fingers.

    • zdragnar 7 days ago |
      Surely for something so important, they'd verify it rather than let it sit around for the public to point out.

      At a minimum this is definitely a process failure due to incompetence.

      • likeabatterycar 7 days ago |
        Maybe it was file system corruption, who knows?

        "Dell is posting unsigned update executables" is a loaded statement that implies this was intentional. Dell has been signing updates since before most infosec engineers were in middle school ogling cheerleaders. It's alarmist and highly unlikely this was intentional.

        • dumpsterdiver 7 days ago |
          That still wouldn’t excuse that someone clearly didn’t verify their work. No matter what the reason, ownership of this task was released before it should have been.
          • likeabatterycar 7 days ago |
            You have no evidence of that not happening. It could be corruption after the fact or failure during replication.

            The armchair wolves already smell blood and are assigning blame before a postmortem has even begun.

            • muppetman 7 days ago |
              You're right. A headline of "Dell's website is serving up unsigned updates" would be correct. But to garner more clicks and hype that's not how they've worded their tweet, instead it's worded to make it sound like Dell are doing this on purpose.
              • preciousoo 7 days ago |
                The original “tweet” didn’t attempt to infer reason or assign blame though. All it did is state two facts, according to their system
        • ddtaylor 7 days ago |
          Dell is a large player in storage integrity for servers for exactly this purpose.
    • bhaney 7 days ago |
      > This firmware update has been periodically failing since I got this laptop from work several weeks ago, and only today did I put in the effort to track down where it was hiding the logs with the real reason

      If they haven't pulled the "corrupt" firmware after it's been up and broken for weeks, I don't think anyone needs to rescind the "incompetent" label.

      • likeabatterycar 7 days ago |
        The only evidence we have is a single anecdote on Mastodon sparse on details and nothing you said can be validated.

        For all we know, the failure was in his employer's proxy server and the corrupt file was cached.

        Let's not wait for facts though, proceed immediately to the crucifixion of Dell.

        With everyone quick on the trigger to throw someone under the bus, imagine being a coworker in such a toxic environment.

        • harry8 7 days ago |
          Crucifixion? Really? Come on now...

          I paid Dell a bunch of money for a laptop. They pushed a bios update, that ubuntu kindly relayed to me that meant when I closed the lid and put the laptop in my bag as I sat beside my daughter's ICU bed, it fried the motherboard. No really. That was the /purpose/ of the bios "upgrade." Warranty after they remotely fried my machine? No, because it worked as designed.

          So yeah going bayesian given none of us can be 100% sure about anything, my prior on Dell is they suck donkeys' gonads on all levels. Competence, honesty, service, everything - until evidence shows otherwise and I've just told you why.

          Why is your prior that Dell are competent even when evidence suggests otherwise?

          • likeabatterycar 7 days ago |
            Why would you voluntarily use an OS that installs BIOS updates (broken or not) without consent? It's egregious even if the timing wasn't inconvenient.
            • harry8 7 days ago |
              Sure wouldn’t ever again!

              At the time i was probably a little preoccupied and just clicked yes, safe in the delusion that no distro nor any hardware vendor would ever push a laptop bricking bios update.

              Sibling got it. Feel disabled sleep so if you didn’t shut it down and wait before closing the lid and putting in your bag it fried the mobo. Yeah. If you treated your laptop like a laptop the way you’d used it hundreds of times that was now like tossing it in the dishwasher.

              Unbelievable. Yet it happened. I hate Dell. I’m not letting go of that anger. Ubuntu, meh. Pretty poor but still not Dell.

          • kaashif 7 days ago |
            Can you give more information about what the stated purpose of the upgrade was? Surely they didn't actually tell you they wanted to brick your laptop remotely?
            • thaumasiotes 7 days ago |
              I'm speculating, but recently there's been a trend to prevent laptops from sleeping by disabling the existing functionality, because... companies hate customers?

              This causes major problems for laptops that are ever located inside bags.

              • harry8 7 days ago |
                Yep.

                Best to do that without telling your customers that long established behaviour would kill it. Dell.

              • SSLy 7 days ago |
                > companies hate customers?

                clueless VPs want their products to behave like Apple's, but then beancounters won't sign a budget for iteration. MVP is shipped, turns out it's always buggy.

                • thaumasiotes 7 days ago |
                  What, Apple advertises sleep and then decides "you know what, even though it works fine, and is heavily used, and is essential for enabling laptops to be portable, which is the only advantage they have over desktops - we should just stop that from working"?

                  Or is this more of a "Who's going to notice that the functionality they use every day has been disabled?" kind of idea?

                  The only feature here is that you're no longer allowed to do something that was an important part of how the computer worked. That's the headline of the press release, and the goal of the software.

            • zeven7 7 days ago |
              I assumed it was a fast boot thing. I hate it and have been fighting it for years. I can’t believe a company of the size insists on being so anti consumer.
          • thaumasiotes 7 days ago |
            > Warranty after they remotely fried my machine? No, because it worked as designed.

            You can still sue them for frying your machine; it's not a legitimate intent for them to have.

  • SilasX 7 days ago |
    Wow that’s almost as bad as Firefox five years ago … except this probably doesn’t compromise privacy addons that will get someone killed.

    https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/05/technical-details-on-the-r...

  • ganzuul 7 days ago |
    Dell must have calculated that Microsoft will take the blame for this.
  • klaas- 7 days ago |
    yesterday they were also serving a update catalog index that did not match it's signature https://downloads.dell.com/catalog/CatalogIndex.gz // https://downloads.dell.com/catalog/CatalogIndex.gz -- but that was fixed after I complained

    and their idrac based firmware updater downloads http(s)://downloads.dell.com/Catalog/Catalog.xml.gz without checking the signature -- and by default without verifying https certificates when using https :D

  • bananapub 6 days ago |
    I mean, someone is, who knows if it is Dell or not. probably Dell doesn't know either, based on their usual software quality.