New Intel chip flaw threatens encryption, but Macs are safe

A chip-level flaw in Intel-made silicon could render many of the chipmaker's security features useless, though recent Macs are safe.

Inherent vulnerabilities in Intel chips have been a common theme over the past couple of years, with major flaws exploits like Meltdown, Spectre and ZombieLoad impacting virtually all Intel-equipped devices.

In 2019, security researchers at Positive Technologies discovered another issue with Intel chips. Specifically, it's a vulnerability affecting Intel's Converged Security Management Engine, a key security feature in Intel technology and firmware running on Intel hardware.

Along with loading and varying BIOS and power management firmware, CSME also provides the "cryptographic basis" for features such as Digital Rights Management (DRM) technologies, firmware-based trusted platform modules (TPMs), or Intel's own Enhanced Privacy ID.

Intel released a patch in 2019 to mitigate the issue, but researchers at Positive Technologies have found it to be much worse than originally anticipated. New research published on Thursday indicates that the vulnerability can be exploited to recover a root cryptographic key, potentially granting an attacker access to everything on a device's data.

That could be a major problem for DRM-protected media. Used offensively, the flaw could be leveraged to decrypt traffic inbound or outbound from the impacted device. On a larger scale, it could be used on Intel-based servers.

Though past Intel vulnerabilities have affected Apple devices, this flaw doesn't impact recent Macs equipped with an Apple T1 or T2 chip. Since those chips are based on first-party technology and boot before any Intel chips, a user's encryption keys are safe.

Of course, older Macs without a T-series chip — or the present iMac lineup minus the iMac Pro — may be vulnerable to the exploit, which could affect FileVault encryption. The flaw is unpatchable and Intel advises that users "maintain physical possession" of their devices as there is no way to use the attack vector remotely by clicking on a bad advertisement, for instance.

Intel points out that 10th-generation chips are safe from it, however. The vulnerability, and others like it, is also one of many potential reasons why Apple may soon move its Macs over to ARM-based processors.

Latest Exclusives

Latest comparisons

34 Comments

razorpit 17 Years · 1793 comments

About 4 years ago

FileVault protection on older Macs is useless?

What do you say other than "Yikes"?

Mike Wuerthele 8 Years · 6906 comments

razorpit said:

FileVault protection on older Macs is useless? What do you say other than "Yikes"?

It's an issue, but not a giant day-to-day one. The timing attack is non-trivial to execute, is targeted, and if, like the article says, you maintain physical security of your Mac you'll be fine.

rob53 13 Years · 3312 comments

Mike Wuerthele said:

razorpit said:

FileVault protection on older Macs is useless? What do you say other than "Yikes"?

It's an issue, but not a giant day-to-day one. The timing attack is non-trivial to execute, is targeted, and if, like the article says, you maintain physical security of your Mac you'll be fine.

You don’t need FileVault if you’re protecting your equipment using physical security so your excuse for intel’s failure doesn’t hold water. FileVault is supposed to protect a Mac where physical security can’t be maintained so this revelation means intel, again, has failed to produce a secure CPU.

Soli 9 Years · 9981 comments

Yet another reason for Apple to ditch Intel for ARM as soon as it can, as the article states at the end.

Mike Wuerthele said:

razorpit said:

FileVault protection on older Macs is useless? What do you say other than "Yikes"?

It's an issue, but not a giant day-to-day one. The timing attack is non-trivial to execute, is targeted, and if, like the article says, you maintain physical security of your Mac you'll be fine.

rob53 said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

razorpit said:

FileVault protection on older Macs is useless? What do you say other than "Yikes"?

It's an issue, but not a giant day-to-day one. The timing attack is non-trivial to execute, is targeted, and if, like the article says, you maintain physical security of your Mac you'll be fine.

You don’t need FileVault if you’re protecting your equipment using physical security so your excuse for intel’s failure doesn’t hold water. FileVault is supposed to protect a Mac where physical security can’t be maintained so this revelation means intel, again, has failed to produce a secure CPU.

Sure, but FileVault exists because you can't always guarantee physical security of your Macs.

rob53 said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

razorpit said:

FileVault protection on older Macs is useless? What do you say other than "Yikes"?

It's an issue, but not a giant day-to-day one. The timing attack is non-trivial to execute, is targeted, and if, like the article says, you maintain physical security of your Mac you'll be fine.

You don’t need FileVault if you’re protecting your equipment using physical security so your excuse for intel’s failure doesn’t hold water. FileVault is supposed to protect a Mac where physical security can’t be maintained so this revelation means intel, again, has failed to produce a secure CPU.

It is ludicrous to assume that I'm making an "excuse for Intel's failure." The truth of the matter is that it is a hard exploit to take advantage of, for the discussed reasons.

Dial back the rhetoric a bit.