Your apology is accepted.

Keep telling yourself that. Off you go now ...

OK. Now I'm convinced you know what you are talking about. Next time start with that instead of "butts I'ze da qualzified infosec guy" along with making a bunch of stupid statements that show you don't understand basic English.

I agree that ICE Agents should pay for their crimes, but don't you think you execution for insubordination might be taking it a bit too far? It seems like a couple of decades in prison for their treason should be enough. The prisoners will take it from there.

He is pretty self-centered, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say "almost all of the time".

"you tried to claim someone could plug in a network cable...to a server in a secure datacenter, during a few -second reboot window where they'd already have physical access to plug in a malicious boot USB"

1. It doesn't have to plug in to the server. It just needs to be able to send ICMP packets that can reach the server. 2. It can be plugged in at any time outside of the window, you don't have to plug the device in while it is rebooting 3. A boot USB wouldn't work because the vulnerable code has already executed by the time EUFI tries to boot. 4. USB boot is a much more time consuming approach to hack the server in general, since the attacker would need to change the boot options at the console and then change them back, and in between boot the USB based tools (e.g. Kali) and do any actual hacking, which requires skills. The console is generally not anywhere near the server. The opportunity windows for being caught is much bigger. 5. "Secure Datacenter" doesn't mean anything when the people with access to the physical network are the ones who are doing the device installation, and those people don't need to have *any* hacking skills.

This hack allows a bad actor to hack the system simply by having access to a switch for a moment (they can hide a small EPS32 or similar device behind it that will go unnoticed until it is too late), and then it occurs without any way to trace who did the hack, or even that the hack occurred.

If someone told you that you are a "qualified infosec professional" they lied to you, and you should seek a refund.

You keep trying this argument from authority thing, while objectively proving that you have no idea what you are talking about. For the record, that is how to use the word "objectively" in a sentence. I don't doubt that you did well in the National Language Arts Special Olympics, and I might even believe that you got the highest score on the short bus, but when you start playing with people in a more advanced league you will find that the game is different. It isn't just that you are trying to play in a different league, you literally don't know the rules. Off you go now ...

"I am objectively considered an expert in infosec"

You need to take a high school English class.

"The residual risk, the risk after security mitigations are applied is low in essentially every environment.",

Yes, that's how mitigation works. Herp Derp. Your claim that the risk isn't high, because once you mitigate the risk it becomes low might be the most stupid comment I have seen this year. Make sure you sign up for that English class ... seriously.

You think that it is basically low level because your understanding of it is basically low level. If there is one thing you can be sure of on Slashdot is that there is no shortage of people who are smarter then the experts and are quick to explain why the experts are fools. The experts have rated this, not you and the other idiots who think they are smarter then the experts. If you don't want to be called an idiot shut up and don't be one. Problem solved.

Yes. That summarizes it pretty well. You're claims are false and the only way to deal with your idiocy is to be an asshole. I'm glad to see you at least understand something.

"Your network/system design should take that into consideration, and not rely on UEFI being secure."

I can't wait to hear how you intend to do that, or for that matter what you even thinks that means. Should they not connect the hardware together by networking it? What "flaw" in the network design do you think was made that allowed packets to get to the NIC? I'm guessing you will say "don't use ICMP" as if that doesn't make it impossible to control a network of thousands of computers properly.

"Next time address the main point: UEFI was not designed with security as a priority, which invites security bugs in the implementation. They are almost impossible to avoid."

I literally already addressed this directly, to wit, you are a clueless fuckwit with no idea what you are talking about, saying something that is completely untrue. I especially like how you say to "compare to OpenBSD" as if people run OpenBSD without relying on UEFI to do that. Just accept the fact that I called you out on your bullshit. If "I am an asshole" that is because you are an idiot and idiocy brings out that part of me. I've learned over the years that it is the only way to respond in such cases. Any other approach gives you the false hope that you might have at some point said something that wasn't phenomenally stupid.

Did it? Whatever you do don't try it! You need to protect your ability to make uninformed and idiotic comments on Slashdot at all cost.

This is known as confirmation bias. You have clearly never worked at any large organization with hundred or thousands of servers. Pay attention to the operative word "effectively" above.

This was not a UEFI flaw, it was a flaw in the particular implementation of the UEFI Standard. The TianoCore EDK is a development kit that implements the open standard. You don't understand the basics, preferring instead to try to sound like a security expert, despite the fact that you have no idea how it is developed. TianoCore enforces an explicit Secure Coding Guide. No system is perfect, but you are just someone trying to sound like you know what you are talking about, when it is easy to prove that you don't.

Since it involves a flaw in the PXI driver shipped with the TianoCore EDK, how could it possibly have anything to do with iSCSI booting?