A "Vulnerability" by Any Other Name
Mon, 18 Nov 2024
The developers of the kernel named Linux are considering a change that concerns me. The proposal suggests classifying outdated CPU microcode as a system vulnerability, placing it alongside serious security flaws. While seemingly a minor tweak aimed at bolstering security, this shift has far-reaching implications, especially for those who champion user freedom and control over their software.
This change means that if your CPU isn't running the latest microcode, your system will be flagged as "vulnerable." This information will be exposed to userspace, making it visible to applications and potentially even websites if those applications further share it. While the intention might be to encourage users to keep their systems updated, this approach raises serious concerns about user freedom, privacy, and the definition of a "vulnerability."
The Never-Ending Treadmill of "Latest is Best"
At the heart of this issue lies a flawed assumption: that the latest version of anything is inherently better. In the case of CPU microcode, this isn't true. Further, the kernel developers named Linux aren't tracking which microcode version fixes specific vulnerabilities. They keep a list of the latest versions, saying, "If you don't have this, you're vulnerable." But vulnerable to what, exactly? This lack of specificity divorces the conversation from actual security risks. It turns it into a generic race to the latest version, as if that guarantees safety, and is problematic for several reasons.
- The Illusion of Constant Vulnerability: It fosters a climate of perpetual insecurity, implying that your system is always at risk unless you're constantly chasing the newest microcode. This disregards the fact that many updates often address highly specific bugs, some of which may only affect certain hardware configurations or use cases that may not even apply to your system or pose any real threat to the average user. The proposed change in Linux, however, disregards this nuance. It paints with a broad brush, declaring any system without the absolute latest microcode as "vulnerable," regardless of whether any problems exist.
- A False Sense of Urgency: By conflating these with critical security flaws, the proposed change creates unnecessary fear and encourages a culture of constant updating, regardless of the actual risks involved. This approach can pressure users to install updates without fully understanding the reasons behind them. It creates a false sense of urgency, leading to hasty decisions that compromise user freedom.
This approach is misleading and pressures users to relinquish control over their systems and unquestioningly trust proprietary code, all in the name of a vague and undefined "vulnerability."
A Conflict of Principles
The real problem is one of principle. These proprietary microcode updates inherently violate user rights and freedoms. By labeling systems as "vulnerable," they effectively press users to abandon their freedoms and install proprietary software they have no control over.
This is not only ethically problematic but also creates a dangerous precedent. It normalizes the idea that users must sacrifice their freedom for security, a trade-off that the free software movement has always resisted. It sends a message that convenience and a false sense of security are more important than user autonomy and control over one's computing.
The Slippery Slope to Surveillance: When Website Become Gatekeepers
This change in the kernel named Linux opens a Pandora's box of potential problems that extend far beyond just microcode updates. Exposing the "old microcode" flag to userspace makes it accessible to any application, including web browsers. This raises the alarming possibility of sending this information to websites. Imagine a scenario where your web browser starts reporting this flag to every website you visit, which could use this information to restrict access or discriminate against users based on merely being "out of date," regardless of any perceived or actual "vulnerability."
Suddenly, your ability to access your favorite online communities, email, social media accounts, banking, job applications, government services, or healthcare information could be contingent on running the latest proprietary microcode. This creates a dangerous precedent where:
- Websites become gatekeepers: Essential online services could become inaccessible to users who prioritize their freedom.
- Pressure to update intensifies: Users would face immense pressure to install proprietary updates, regardless of the actual security concerns or free software principles. This could lead to a chilling effect on free software adoption. Users that value freedom could be could be unfairly excluded from participating in the digital world.
This scenario paints a dystopian picture of a future where access to the internet is increasingly conditional and controlled. It raises serious concerns about digital rights, privacy, and the potential for technology to be used to enforce conformity and restrict user freedom.
Furthermore, this browser behavior sets a dangerous precedent for increased surveillance and data collection. If browsers can freely share information about your system's microcode, what's to stop them from reporting even more detailed data points in the future? This could lead to a web where your access is determined by an ever-growing list of arbitrary criteria, eroding privacy and online freedom. The proposed change to the kernel named Linux is not just a technical issue; it has profound implications for digital rights and the potential for technology to enforce conformity and restrict user freedom.
While seemingly a minor technicality, the proposed change to the kernel named Linux raises serious concerns.
Recognizing the potential for this seemingly technical change to have far-reaching societal consequences is crucial. Labeling systems with outdated microcode as "vulnerable " perpetuates a culture of fear and encourages an unquestioning reliance on proprietary software. This approach undermines the principles of free software and opens the door to potential surveillance and discrimination against users who prioritize their freedom.
The future of free software depends on our collective action. Let's raise our voices and defend the principles of user freedom, ensuring that technology empowers rather than restricts us. Let's work towards a digital world where everyone has the right to control their computing.