Firmware remote vulnerability in Intel business products
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Intel's Management Technology is indeed vulnerable
Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 19:49:54 +0200 (CEST)
From: I love OpenBSD <lampshade(a)poczta.fm>
To: misc(a)openbsd.org
INTEL-SA-00075
There is an escalation of privilege vulnerability in Intel® Active Management Technology (AMT), Intel® Standard Manageability (ISM), and Intel® Small Business Technology versions firmware versions 6.x, 7.x, 8.x 9.x, 10.x, 11.0, 11.5, and 11.6 that can allow an unprivileged attacker to gain control of the manageability features provided by these products.
Can I preview a bitlink before clicking on it?
https://support.bitly.com/hc/en-us/articles/230650447-Can-I-preview-a-bitli…
Arstechnica:
http://bit.ly/2qyHCQn
Semiaccurate:
http://bit.ly/2pB2MjO
Intel's PDF:
http://intel.ly/2qAK4G0
Trent W. Buck via luv-talk wrote:
> Joel Shea via luv-talk wrote:
>> On 22 August 2018 at 23:16, Rohan McLeod via luv-talk <luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au> wrote:
>>> I was still astonished when this "DVD",
>>> seemed to have 61 GB of files !
>>> ...
>>> anyone come across this kind of thing and why does it exist ?
>> This has to do with the way DVD-Video is "authored", the format's
>> specification is quite complicated[1], so without going too deep; the
>> DVD "filesystem" is just one view of the content—since video, audio,
>> subtitle and navigation streams are _multiplexed_ and stored in the VOB
>> container, you can have multiple titles with their own set of VOB files
>> that reference the same MPEG input streams in different ways, this could
>> be due to multi-angle feature (e.g. for internationalisation, directors
>> cuts, etc) and/or other extra features.
>>
>> It appears you may have a benign "multiple title" DVD-Video, rather than
>> a brain dead copy protection attempt (e.g. obfuscation using 99 titles).
>>
>> How were you copying these files?
> Let me paraphase to check my understanding.
>
> 1. that specific DVD disc has <4.7GiB of actual raw bytes on it, i.e. if you did
>
> cp /dev/sr0 my-dvd.udf # or
> dd if=/dev/sr0 of=my-dvd.udf
>
> the resulting file would be normal DVD-size.
>
>
> 2. inside the ordinary UDF filesystem might be (say) three different
> versions of the movie, which are 95% identical, but just have 5%
> different scenes --- e.g. the original theatrical version, the
> director's cut (5% extra content) and the pre-watershed TV
> broadcast version (5% less content - no sexy bits).
>
> So when Rohan ripped the DVD into some conventional format, he ended up with (say)
>
> 4.0GB movie-theatrical.mp2
> 4.2GB movie-director.mp2
> 3.8GB movie-tv.mp2
>
> which "adds up" to more than the DVD can logically hold.
;Apologies Trent ! further investigation shows only 6Gb on the DVD;
whilst not exactly as above what is being reported is uncompressed size;
mystery solved !
apologies Rohan McLeod
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 12:08:06PM +1000, Trent W. Buck via luv-talk wrote:
>
> 1. that specific DVD disc has <4.7GiB of actual raw bytes on it, i.e. if you did
>
> cp /dev/sr0 my-dvd.udf # or
> dd if=/dev/sr0 of=my-dvd.udf
>
> the resulting file would be normal DVD-size.
I assume so, I haven't used optical media for almost 10 years :-)
> 2. inside the ordinary UDF filesystem might be (say) three different
> versions of the movie, which are 95% identical, but just have 5%
> different scenes --- e.g. the original theatrical version, the
> director's cut (5% extra content) and the pre-watershed TV
> broadcast version (5% less content - no sexy bits).
> (...)
> So when Rohan ripped the DVD into some conventional format, he ended up with (say)
> (...)
> which "adds up" to more than the DVD can logically hold.
That's how I understand it.
> 3. this is similar to hard links (or btrfs/ZFS shared reflinks), and
> removing them due to incautious copying. Example:
> (...)
Probably an apt analogy, since the VOB files in the directory structure
are able to reference the same VOBs (or subsets thereof) on disc, albeit
it gets more complicated than that, i.e. the DVD-Video format includes
it's own machine-language and VM.
~J
Assembled Cogniscenti small mystery:
I was looking at this DVD "The Lovely Bones" with a view to ;
assembling the .vob files into one file to play on my machine.
The 'DVD drive is actually a Blu-Ray R/W drive ;
which can read and write 100GB M-disks.
But I was still astonished when this "DVD",
seemed to have 61 GB of files !
At first I thought it was just corrupt and reporting false file sizes;
but when I started copying files they all seemed to be correct.
Instead of say 4 - 6 .vob files totalling about 4-6 GB ;
there were 6 groups of 6 vob files;
anyone come across this kind of thing and why does it exist ?
regards Rohan McLeod
Trent W. Buck via luv-talk wrote:
> Joel Shea via luv-talk wrote:
>> On 22 August 2018 at 23:16, Rohan McLeod via luv-talk <luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au> wrote:
>>> I was still astonished when this "DVD",
>>> seemed to have 61 GB of files !
>>> ...
>>> anyone come across this kind of thing and why does it exist ?
>> This has to do with the way DVD-Video is "authored", the format's
>> specification is quite complicated[1], so without going too deep; the
>> DVD "filesystem" is just one view of the content—since video, audio,
>> subtitle and navigation streams are _multiplexed_ and stored in the VOB
>> container, you can have multiple titles with their own set of VOB files
>> that reference the same MPEG input streams in different ways, this could
>> be due to multi-angle feature (e.g. for internationalisation, directors
>> cuts, etc) and/or other extra features.
>>
>> It appears you may have a benign "multiple title" DVD-Video, rather than
>> a brain dead copy protection attempt (e.g. obfuscation using 99 titles).
>>
>> How were you copying these files?
> Let me paraphase to check my understanding.
>
> 1. that specific DVD disc has <4.7GiB of actual raw bytes on it, i.e. if you did
>
> cp /dev/sr0 my-dvd.udf # or
> dd if=/dev/sr0 of=my-dvd.udf
>
> the resulting file would be normal DVD-size.
>
>
> 2. inside the ordinary UDF filesystem might be (say) three different
> versions of the movie, which are 95% identical, but just have 5%
> different scenes --- e.g. the original theatrical version, the
> director's cut (5% extra content) and the pre-watershed TV
> broadcast version (5% less content - no sexy bits).
>
> So when Rohan ripped the DVD into some conventional format, he ended up with (say)
>
> 4.0GB movie-theatrical.mp2
> 4.2GB movie-director.mp2
> 3.8GB movie-tv.mp2
>
> which "adds up" to more than the DVD can logically hold.
Trent that is simply not the case;
what I am seeking some explanation for is a " DVD ?" which has 61GB of
files visible !;
eg the output from (apologies win7 ) dir v: /s is:
see at https://cloudup.com/ca4IRtI_eUC
ie " 174 File(s) 66,483,209,224 bytes"
which is pretty much identical to the copy on the hard disk
regards Rohan McLeod
