Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Hi.

Consider a hypothetical computer virus that would cause a CPU to
overheat and burn up. Is this possible? Is it possible, through
software, to get a CPU to overclock so far and the cooling fans to shut
off completely, until it bursts? I've heard that modern CPUs can be
overclocked through the BIOS, so couldn't a virus theoretically access
this and nuke the system? Worst case scenario the thing actually
catches fire. I've seen various virus hoaxes that talk about computer
viruses damaging hardware, and various FAQs and reports talking about
computer viruses not being able to do that and that any warning
discussing a virus proporting to do such a thing is a hoax. But now I'm
not so sure anymore, considering the ominous discovery in the BIOS...

Is it possible that we may see such a virus or worm in the future?
Should BIOS overclocking be removed from computers?

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Any hardware that can be damaged by software is defective or is a
specialty machine not for layman use. It was once possible to damage
some monitors by outputting wrong signals from a video controller. But
that was a design defect. No software can damage hardware. Any
processor that would overheat (a slow temperature increase) due to
excessive 'software' commands is throttled or turned off by existing
hardware. This applies to all Intel CPUs even back to 486s and to
newer motherboards for AMD processors.

I have seen many claims. Amazing how many 'computer experts' don't
even know how electricity works. How many don't even know of thermal
protection standard in so many integrated circuits. Many self
proclaimed 'computer experts' will insist they need not know how
electricity works. Therefore urban myths are easily promoted.

Hardware that can be damaged by software is defective by design. And
yet some 'computer experts' also insist that a disk drive can be
destroyed by software. Amazing is how they know this must be true -
without any idea how software talks to disk drives.

mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Consider a hypothetical computer virus that would cause a CPU to
> overheat and burn up. Is this possible? Is it possible, through
> software, to get a CPU to overclock so far and the cooling fans to shut
> off completely, until it bursts? I've heard that modern CPUs can be
> overclocked through the BIOS, so couldn't a virus theoretically access
> this and nuke the system? Worst case scenario the thing actually
> catches fire. I've seen various virus hoaxes that talk about computer
> viruses damaging hardware, and various FAQs and reports talking about
> computer viruses not being able to do that and that any warning
> discussing a virus proporting to do such a thing is a hoax. But now I'm
> not so sure anymore, considering the ominous discovery in the BIOS...
>
> Is it possible that we may see such a virus or worm in the future?
> Should BIOS overclocking be removed from computers?

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Any hardware that can be damaged by software is defective or is a
specialty machine not for layman use. It was once possible to damage
some monitors by outputting wrong signals from a video controller. But
that was a design defect. No software can damage hardware. Any
processor that would overheat (a slow temperature increase) due to
excessive 'software' commands is throttled or turned off by existing
hardware. This applies to all Intel CPUs even back to 486s and to
newer motherboards for AMD processors.

I have seen many claims. Amazing how many 'computer experts' don't
even know how electricity works. How many don't even know of thermal
protection standard in so many integrated circuits. Many self
proclaimed 'computer experts' will insist they need not know how
electricity works. Therefore urban myths are easily promoted.

Hardware that can be damaged by software is defective by design. And
yet some 'computer experts' also insist that a disk drive can be
destroyed by software. Amazing is how they know this must be true -
without any idea how software talks to disk drives.

mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Consider a hypothetical computer virus that would cause a CPU to
> overheat and burn up. Is this possible? Is it possible, through
> software, to get a CPU to overclock so far and the cooling fans to shut
> off completely, until it bursts? I've heard that modern CPUs can be
> overclocked through the BIOS, so couldn't a virus theoretically access
> this and nuke the system? Worst case scenario the thing actually
> catches fire. I've seen various virus hoaxes that talk about computer
> viruses damaging hardware, and various FAQs and reports talking about
> computer viruses not being able to do that and that any warning
> discussing a virus proporting to do such a thing is a hoax. But now I'm
> not so sure anymore, considering the ominous discovery in the BIOS...
>
> Is it possible that we may see such a virus or worm in the future?
> Should BIOS overclocking be removed from computers?

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

mike4ty4@yahoo.com writes:

> Hi.
>
> Consider a hypothetical computer virus that would cause a CPU to
> overheat and burn up. Is this possible?

It'd be awfully hard to prove that such a thing would be impossible.

I'd instead pose the question of "has such a thing been reported on
any known platform/processor/OS combination." I know I haven't heard
of anything. As someone who's been on chip design teams and done
microsequencer design, I will say that it would be quite conceivable
for a microprocessor to have a design flaw whereby software could put
the microsequencer into a state that would lead to hardware failure.
And as you suggest, a flaw that allowed access to the BIOS could be
catastrophic that way, but with the plurality of BIOS implementations
out there, it'd be exceedingly difficult to create an attack that'd
take down a large number of targets.

> Is it possible that we may see such a virus or worm in the future?

Certainly possible. Likely? I have my doubts, and I'm not going to
worry about it a whole lot.

> Should BIOS overclocking be removed from computers?

No. And even if it "should" we won't see it happen because the
enthusiast market has too many $'s in it such that mobo manufacturers
won't go back to the days of jumpered clock configs and such.

It's an interesting question though.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

w_tom wrote:
> Any hardware that can be damaged by software is defective

Unfortunately we accept such defects in commodity hardware to get
the lowest price.

> Any processor that would overheat (a slow temperature increase) due to
> excessive 'software' commands is throttled or turned off by existing
> hardware.

I believe this is implemented in software (BIOS) on at least lower-cost
x86 motherboards. A magic CPU mode is used to achieve independence from
the OS, its accessible memory, and CPU registers like the MMU. However,
it's too much to expect that there is no bug in the CPU, motherboard,
or BIOS, from any vendor, that could be exploited to block the fan
feedback. All the more so since there are sound reasons for the vendor
to provide loopholes so bootable software can test or tweak the BIOS
functions. And, of course, the BIOS itself is vulnerable, since it
is typically stored in flash memory for convenience of fixing bugs.

> And yet some 'computer experts' also insist that a disk drive can be
> destroyed by software.

SCSI disks, at least, have many stored modes that can be set such that
the disk can't be used until software aware of the proper modes (ie not
the driver) puts them right. I believe I also managed to lose the
built-in bad track map once, clearly a defect in the drive but to be
expected with the amount of software embedded in the drive (which BTW
is also vulnerable to rewriting in many drives).

Prices being what they are, a not-so-new disk or motherboard damaged
by the hypothetical virus in such a way that it can be repaired by the
right software tool or chip replacement is probably not worth what it
would cost to hire the appropriate expert to do it.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Todd describes a condition that causes a crash; not hardware damage.
He also describes a manufacturer's design defect - not a conditon made
possible in the field. Motherboards, et al have been made, upgraded,
and enhanced from previous experiences so many times. Design is mostly
provided to motherboard manufacturers from Intel, AMD, and other high
tech companies. Design is repeated so often as to be well established.
What sells as cheap would cost massively if done from scratch. No,
those cheap motherboards have massive design and experience within
them. For example, today's Intel CPUs cannot overheat destructively
because of designs well proven in the 1980s.

Even circuits inside ICs are designed so that unintended logic states
cannot cause damage. But then also logic inside a microsequencer is
not accessible to a virus. Twice why virus cannot cause such damage.
In the rare case that a virus causes hardware damage, that manufacturer
would be scrambling to eliminate that problem since virus created
damage would mean we stop buying anything from that manufacturer; his
products are now considered all suspect. Any hardware damaged by a
virus - that manufacturer then has how many other defects?
Manufacturer would be flirting with bankruptcy - hardware damaged by
software is that unacceptable. Just another reason why viruses cannot
cause hardware damage.

As Todd says, it is an interesting question. But then designers
appreciate things that users would never even know. Let's take a
simple example. Take all outputs from a power supply. Short them all
together. Connect the +5 to the +3.3 to the +12 to the -12, etc. Now
turn on power supply? Is anything damaged? No - not if the power
supply contains functions that were even required 30+ years ago. Just
another legacy of so much experience that is now standard in today's
designs. Take some CMOS logic gates. Ties all those outputs together.
But the logic gate outputs at various and contradictory logic states.
Are any logic gates damage? Of course not. Again, a legacy of design
so many generations ago. It may sell cheap. But the massive knowledge
implemented in the design makes hardware damage unlikely and totally
unacceptable. The question begs you to grasp how expansive a cheap
design really is.

Todd H. wrote:
> It'd be awfully hard to prove that such a thing would be impossible.
>
> I'd instead pose the question of "has such a thing been reported on
> any known platform/processor/OS combination." I know I haven't heard
> of anything. As someone who's been on chip design teams and done
> microsequencer design, I will say that it would be quite conceivable
> for a microprocessor to have a design flaw whereby software could put
> the microsequencer into a state that would lead to hardware failure.
> And as you suggest, a flaw that allowed access to the BIOS could be
> catastrophic that way, but with the plurality of BIOS implementations
> out there, it'd be exceedingly difficult to create an attack that'd
> take down a large number of targets.
> ...
>
> Certainly possible. Likely? I have my doubts, and I'm not going to
> worry about it a whole lot.
> ...
>
> No. And even if it "should" we won't see it happen because the
> enthusiast market has too many $'s in it such that mobo manufacturers
> won't go back to the days of jumpered clock configs and such.
>
> It's an interesting question though.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

"w_tom" writes:

>What sells as cheap would cost massively if done from scratch. No,
>those cheap motherboards have massive design and experience within
>them. For example, today's Intel CPUs cannot overheat destructively
>because of designs well proven in the 1980s.

Yet I know of several laptops which inadvertently turned on while
in a case and then subsequently died the "heat death". (Stuff
actually melts inside and they no longer work)

> As Todd says, it is an interesting question. But then designers
>appreciate things that users would never even know. Let's take a
>simple example. Take all outputs from a power supply. Short them all
>together. Connect the +5 to the +3.3 to the +12 to the -12, etc. Now
>turn on power supply? Is anything damaged? No - not if the power
>supply contains functions that were even required 30+ years ago.

Really? The most common cause of power supply failure seems to be
a short in the system (e.g., one cause by a loose screw).

I've lost three power supplies last year until I discovered that
the case speaker had attracted a loose screw and cause a short.

(Some lasted longer than others and some died more vehmently than others;
but they all died, cheap and expensive)

Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

"w_tom" writes:

> Todd describes a condition that causes a crash; not hardware
> damage.
> He also describes a manufacturer's design defect - not a conditon made
> possible in the field. Motherboards, et al have been made, upgraded,
> and enhanced from previous experiences so many times. Design is mostly
> provided to motherboard manufacturers from Intel, AMD, and other high
> tech companies.

Among those, one I worked for and hold a circuit design patent with.

> Design is repeated so often as to be well established.

This couldn't be more false in the microprocessor realm where the
state of the art requires reinvention of architecture implementations
to achieve speed gains. Any student of an introductory computer
architecture course could tell you that.

> What sells as cheap would cost massively if done from scratch. No,
> those cheap motherboards have massive design and experience within
> them. For example, today's Intel CPUs cannot overheat destructively
> because of designs well proven in the 1980s.
>
> Even circuits inside ICs are designed so that unintended logic states
> cannot cause damage.

Not universally true. To achieve the speeds of modern
microprocessors, dynamic logic is used in places, and, it is not at
all inconceivable that software on an appropriately privileged
execution layer could write to a microcode that could lead to an
unanticipated logic state that could precipitate a hardware failure.

It's necessarily a goddamn hard thing to try to exploit given the
granularity with which one would need to know the microarchitecture of
the CPU in question, though.

> But then also logic inside a microsequencer is not accessible to a
> virus.

Again, this is typically the case with a given OS/motherboard/CPU
combination, but there's no way to guarantee that this is universally
true.

> designs. Take some CMOS logic gates. Ties all those outputs together.
> But the logic gate outputs at various and contradictory logic states.
> Are any logic gates damage? Of course not.

In a massively integrated design like a CPU, if you get enough of
those transistors drawing crowbar current from the supply rails, you
are going to overheat the device, and cause transitor damage. You
don't think every single logic gate on a cpu with millions of
transistors is designed to have individual short circuit protection do
you?

> implemented in the design makes hardware damage unlikely and totally
> unacceptable.

Totally unacceptable to a consumer if it happened, sure. But do you
really think that with all the design points you need to hit in a
modern CPU design that all possibilities of malicious microcode are
taken into account in every design? In the rush to get things out
the door and to market, mistakes do get made. We just haven't seen a
high profile exploit of such an issue yet, but we can't say that it
can't possibly happen.


--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Addressing some 6 November myths from Sebastian, Casper, and Todd:

> For example, even in 2006 many Intel CPUs died by overheat.

Well how does that happen? Intel CPUs throttle back when hot. Where
is this overheating? Intel thermal protection has been common
knowledge since the 1980s. Why did I mention it? Because I knew some
have so little technical knowledge as to 'take the bait'; 'assume' an
Intel CPU can overheat. No wonder they also 'know' viruses can damage
hardware.

> Stupid. Your description also applies to Flash RAMs, which
> can cause unintentional states, of course

Insult posted along with what "unintentional states"? Insult
word alone implies he was caught lying. Poster clearly has limited
technical knowledge. Somehow, he assumes some machine code
instructions executed in a particular order (unintentional state) will
cause hardware damage. Funny. Every machine code instruction in every
CPU can be executed in any order ... and not cause hardware damage.
Instructions executed in wrong order can cause a software crash.
Software crash is not hardware damage. Somehow Sebastian can swap two
machine code instructions and cause damage? No further comment on his
ridiculous assumption is required.

> Wrong again. Improper connections can certainly cause damage
> due to bad electrical bus arbitration.

Well maybe Sebastian would define this bus? He does this - make
claims without supporting facts - or even name the bus. What is that
bus standard? Sebastian, list by name that bus and define that
arbitration sequence that causes hardware failure. You said it can
happen. Therefore you can example such hardware damage. Arbitration
failures cause software crashes. Furthermore, better software does not
crash due to arbitration failures. Sebastian does not define this bus
damage, cannot define the driver family involved, and cannot define the
failed part. But somehow he knows a virus can cause hardware damage.

> This is even a known phenomena when hot-swapping
> common Flash RAMs for BIOSes.

Apparently Sebastian assumes the lurker is a fool. Hot-swapping has
nothing to do with a virus. And hot-swapping anything inside the
computer is a first year neophyte violation. Apparently Sebastian
wants lurkers to believe hot-swapping has some relevance to viruses.
Hot-swapping of hardware not specifically designed for hot-swapping is
taboo - that much a violation. Sebastian with technical knowledge
would have known that. Did he post to intentionally deceive lurkers,
or is he that technically naive?

> This couldn't be more false in the microprocessor realm
> where the state of the art requires reinvention of
> architecture implementations to achieve speed gains.

Todd should first define this whole new architecture. For example,
Pentium is nothing more than a slow upgrade over decades from the 8086
- which in turn was an upgrade from the 8080. But then Todd, tell me
about your design experience with an 8080 microprocessor. Show me
yours and I will show you mine. I have a few years in this business
- a little hint. There is no major reinvention which is why the same
development tools are used each year - sometimes with upgrades. Each
new microprocessor is but an upgrade from previous developments, which
is why hardware is so reliable and predictable. Which is why the same
testing software and other tools are used on each new 'generation' CPU
using minor upgrades.

So Todd, show us how a virus can change a processor's microcode?
Show us how "dynamic logic" (whatever that is) is manipulated by a
virus? Show us where a "transistors drawing crowbar current from the
supply rails" exists. Please define which logic family shorts out the
power supply because of a software instruction - a virus? Todd, even
hardware drivers are routinely designed to current limit so that no
crowbar exists. A virus will not change that hardware.

> Really? The most common cause of power supply failure
> seems to be a short in the system (e.g., one cause by a
> loose screw).

If true, then a 'computer expert' who built Casper's system bought a
power supply only using two numbers - dollars and watts. Even 30 years
ago, such failures were not acceptable. Intel specs for power supplies
even list a wire gauge (wire size) to test supply outputs shorted with
no damage.

Unfortunately, I see this too often. Too many 'computer experts'
somehow 'know' because they shotgunned (swapped) a power supply.
Person did not learn why that supply failed - did not even perform an
autopsy - and yet somehow knows. Often, a power supply failed when a
human did not know basic functions required of all supplies. Resulting
failure directly traceable to a human who did not even know of
essential supply functions - but somehow just *knew* a short circuit
could cause damage.

Casper demonstrates a common problem. He lost three power supplies
because a speaker had caused a short? Casper - a power supply even 30+
years ago meet this Intel requirement. Anyone with minimal electrical
knowledge would know this: from Section 3.5.2:
> The power supply shall be capable of withstanding a
> continuous short-circuit to the output without any
> damage or overstress to the unit ... The maximum
> short circuit energy in any output shall not exceed
> 240 VA.

Casper demonstrates why some know without first learning basic
knowledge. Casper with basic knowledge could describe fold-back
current limiting. Instead a loose screw somehow cause power supply
damage. Either Casper had no idea why a power supply failed or Casper
purchased using classic 'bean counter' expertise. Yes, one reason for
power supply failure are 'bean counters' pretending to be technically
informed. Common in an America that needs immigrants as engineers
because some Americans are too lazy to first learn basic electricity
concepts.

Those who assume viruses can cause hardware damage have been kind
enough to demonstrate insufficient technical knowledge. This first
example is most damning. A CPU can be damaged if machine code
instructions are executed in a particular order? OK, so I do have more
comments about Sebastian's post. But then I am appalled at
'soundbyte reasoning'. This thread only proves how easily people
were convinced that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction -
speculation somehow becomes fact. Some people just know without first
learning numbers, standards, and technology. Same people tell us that
a virus can cause hardware failure? Welcome to the reason why
Americans are also dying in Iraq.

Virus does not cause computer hardware damage. Some who disagree
were kind enough to demonstrate how 'soundbyte reasoning' works -
assume that viruses cause hardware failure and post it as fact.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

"w_tom" writes:

> Well how does that happen? Intel CPUs throttle back when hot. Where
>is this overheating? Intel thermal protection has been common
>knowledge since the 1980s. Why did I mention it? Because I knew some
>have so little technical knowledge as to 'take the bait'; 'assume' an
>Intel CPU can overheat. No wonder they also 'know' viruses can damage
>hardware.

Bait? We have seen systems which died the heat death; is it important
how this happened? I know for a fact that certain laptops do not have
sufficient overheating protection and the systems will run hot and
get damage or die. Sometimes in exceptional circumstances but sometimes
also due to poor design (such as packages were the CPU will need to
throttle back *IN SOFTWARE* when it is running for a while at fullspeed;
design error, yes; do we know how to solve such errors; yes. Do people
still make these mistakes, yes, they do)

> If true, then a 'computer expert' who built Casper's system bought a
>power supply only using two numbers - dollars and watts. Even 30 years
>ago, such failures were not acceptable. Intel specs for power supplies
>even list a wire gauge (wire size) to test supply outputs shorted with
>no damage.

Oh, and so is the ATX power supply standard prescribes; but *not* for
all outputs, so try and short the 0.5 A output of your favourite
ATX powersupply and watch it go up in smoke.

(Since the ATX power supply standard defines protection only for a few
but not all of the outputs, we can safely say your statement is nonsense;
the fact of the matter is that the the standard *also* specifies that
the powersupplies should not produce "a lot of smoke" (they can produce
some) and should not catch fire (fortunately, they did not), I think
that I can safely say that having "short all output" ATX powersupplies
are not likely to exist.

Perhaps we can make them, but the fact of the matter is that people don't
bother.

Casper

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Same person who somehow knows shorted power supplies will be damaged
(in direction contradiction to an industry standard called 'foldback
current limiting') now knows heat damaged some components. He does not
say what components. He does not even know temperature that could
damage those components. He does not even cite manufacturer data
sheets that prove heat would be destructive. Somehow, he just knows
heat must have cause a failure only because a failure happened.

> ... so try and short the 0.5 A output of your favourite
> ATX powersupply and watch it go up in smoke.

I'll go one step better. This is a 1.0 A single chip power supply.
What does datasheet demand even for this far simpler supply?
http://www.tranzistoare.ro/datasheets/228/390068_DS.pdf
Thermal overload protection. Short circuit protection. Standard is
no damage from short circuit. Standard functions found in power
supplies for decades - even single chip power supplies. Even this
single chip power supply does what Intel's ATX power supply specs
demand. Short circuits do not damage standard power supplies including
those that meet Intel ATX specifications. Some people know otherwise;
will not bother learning from data sheets or other industry standards.

Mike: those who know that viruses can cause computer damage also
post hardware myths. A virus (or any software) that causes damage to
computer hardware means the computer hardware was defective by design.

Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
> Bait? We have seen systems which died the heat death; is it important
> how this happened? I know for a fact that certain laptops do not have
> sufficient overheating protection and the systems will run hot and
> get damage or die. Sometimes in exceptional circumstances but sometimes
> also due to poor design (such as packages were the CPU will need to
> throttle back *IN SOFTWARE* when it is running for a while at fullspeed;
> design error, yes; do we know how to solve such errors; yes. Do people
> still make these mistakes, yes, they do)
> ...
>
> Oh, and so is the ATX power supply standard prescribes; but *not* for
> all outputs, so try and short the 0.5 A output of your favourite
> ATX powersupply and watch it go up in smoke.
> ...

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

w_tom wrote:

> Same person who somehow knows shorted power supplies will be damaged
> (in direction contradiction to an industry standard called 'foldback
> current limiting') now knows heat damaged some components.

Foldback current limiting is safe into a dead short to ground, but
not necessarily into a continuous overcurrent at nearly normal voltage.
Damage in that case is thermal (slow) or results from a transistor
switching off so slowly that an effective short exists across a
capacitor (instant death for a chain of components), or happens in the
wiring rather than in the components.

A short to a different voltage output is quite likely to fry something
as most outputs do not have overvoltage protection or diodes to prevent
reverse voltage. Even perfect protection at the supply would let the
wires of a low current output melt if shorted to a high current output.

Any short applied after voltage is established will cause widespread
damage as the total energy stored in capacitors is transferred to the
wire path.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

The quote is direct from Intel. Shorting power supply outputs must
not damage power supplies.

Either power supply provides power just fine - without damage - or
power supply enters foldback current limiting. Standards even provide
volt-current graphs for all currents - for all loads. If a power
supply provides overcurrent, then it does so without damage or it
protects itself - enters foldback current limiting. But again, nothing
new. This required operation has been standard for 30+ years. Where
overcurrent causes overheating and power supply damage, start with the
most likely reason for failure: human who is a 'bean counter'; not
technically knowledgeable. Market is ripe with power supplies missing
essential features because so many computer assemblers do not even know
about foldback current limiting. They buy on dollars; don't ask for
spec sheets. Power supplies dumped into a market of computer
assemblers who don't even know how electricity works.

If a power supply provides too much current, then it does so without
damage or it enters foldback current limiting. Furthermore, circuits
don't care where that current is going - to ground or where ever.
Current is measured. If current is too high, then foldback current
limiting takes over. But then this is simple fundamental stuff made
obvious even with simple power supply design knowledge - stuff I was
doing even as a teenager.

A short from any one voltage to any other voltage must not cause
damage: is required by industry standards, as is required by Intel
specs, and as was defacto standard 30 years ago.

A quote is direct from Intel:
> The power supply shall be capable of withstanding a
> continuous short-circuit to the output without any
> damage or overstress to the unit ...
Could not be any clearer and blunter.

BTW, when I designed power supplies, that requirement was easily met.
Those requirements are basic stuff. If one cannot understand defacto
power supply standards of 30 years ago, then how can that person answer
the OP's question? Virus does not damage properly designed hardware.

Robert Mabee wrote:
> Foldback current limiting is safe into a dead short to ground, but
> not necessarily into a continuous overcurrent at nearly normal voltage.
> Damage in that case is thermal (slow) or results from a transistor
> switching off so slowly that an effective short exists across a
> capacitor (instant death for a chain of components), or happens in the
> wiring rather than in the components.
>
> A short to a different voltage output is quite likely to fry something
> as most outputs do not have overvoltage protection or diodes to prevent
> reverse voltage. Even perfect protection at the supply would let the
> wires of a low current output melt if shorted to a high current output.
>
> Any short applied after voltage is established will cause widespread
> damage as the total energy stored in capacitors is transferred to the
> wire path.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

w_tom wrote:
> Current is measured. If current is too high, then foldback current
> limiting takes over.

Current is limited at somewhat above the rated value; if the load
has a low resistance then it pulls the voltage down from the nominal;
when the voltage is significantly below nominal the current limit is
reduced, further reducing voltage -- this is the foldback part of the
curve. Current can be quite low into a short circuit but must be
sufficient at all intermediate voltages to power the expected load
(which may act considerably worse than a resistor) and charge up
capacitors at the required ramp-up rate. Thus, the current into a
weak short can be 90% of the limit at 90% of nominal voltage, or 81%
of rated power all dissipated in the immediate vicinity of the screw
that went missing. (I'm assuming the actual load isn't much, maybe
because the CPU is in a power-saving mode, or the customer bought way
too big a power supply because "more is better".)

> A short from any one voltage to any other voltage must not cause
> damage: is required by industry standards, as is required by Intel
> specs, and as was defacto standard 30 years ago.

That's not even implementable for shorts applied with power on, only
for shorts present before power so the power supply will stay at low
voltage and current. There is enough energy stored in capacitors to
vaporize a printed-circuit trace regardless of anything the power
supply can do.

Perhaps we are talking about different things. I gladly concede that
the power supply won't be damaged, or can and should be designed such
that it won't. I suppose this only costs series and bypass diodes,
and higher voltage rating on main output rectifier.
>
> A quote is direct from Intel:
>
>> The power supply shall be capable of withstanding a
>> continuous short-circuit to the output without any
>> damage or overstress to the unit ...

Misses the worst case for the power supply transistor, though. Heat
dissipated in a linear regulator (typically used for all but the highest
current outputs) peaks at a voltage somewhat below nominal, into an
overload that isn't a full short circuit.

Again, the load may be damaged by conditions that the supply withstands.
Printed circuits aren't designed to survive much more current than they
consume.

> Virus does not damage properly designed hardware.

We should stick closer to that topic. (I apologize for drifting.
Power supplies and short circuits were red herrings; no one has said
a virus can kill the power supply.)

Malware could shorten the life of hardware, perhaps dramatically,
with frequent power cycles, motor start-stop cycles, or flash updates,
or with incorrect settings of voltage to CPU or battery charger (ie
if settable for NiMH vs NiCad). (A colleague of mine once wiped out
a new tape drive with a single overnight backup with pessimal buffer
size leading to back-and-forth motion for every block.)

Should we quibble about whether destroying firmware counts?

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Ideal power supplies meet a V-I curve that is a rectangle. The
upper right corner is where power supply outputs maximum power. In
reality, power supplies do not operate well at that corner. This is a
point of excessive current. Therefore proper foldback current limiting
is designed so that power supply never gets into this 'corner'. All
this is responsibility of the power supply designer; user need not
worry about this condition. But manufacturer should state in specs
that overcurrent protection exists.

Proper overcurrent protection is not found in some supplies as some
third party testing demonstrates. TomsHardware.com (?) could not test
some power supplies becasue those supplies failed before full current
was output. IOW power supply was defective by design. Current
liimiting was set too high assuming current limiting even existed.

Yes, some power supplies are defective - will burn on too much load.
But then such supplies typically also don't provide numerical specs
that claim otherwise.

The lurker may not know what any of those spec numbers mean. But if
a vendor will not provide a long list of spec numbers, then that is the
red flag. That red flag says those who do know what numbers mean
cannot warn others.

Overcurrent and other hardware design defects are possible if
component manufacturer does not provide numerical specs - therefore
need not meet those industry requirements.

Same applies to hardware damaged by a virus. If a virus damages
hardware, then hardware is defective by design. What did manufacturer
numerical specs say? Well if specs do not claim to meet industry
standards, then why should hardware survive? Missing specs may identify
the exception. Virus should not damage properly designed hardware.

Robert Mabee wrote:
> Current is limited at somewhat above the rated value; if the load
> has a low resistance then it pulls the voltage down from the nominal;
> when the voltage is significantly below nominal the current limit is
> reduced, further reducing voltage -- this is the foldback part of the
> curve. Current can be quite low into a short circuit but must be
> sufficient at all intermediate voltages to power the expected load
> (which may act considerably worse than a resistor) and charge up
> capacitors at the required ramp-up rate. Thus, the current into a
> weak short can be 90% of the limit at 90% of nominal voltage, or 81%
> of rated power all dissipated in the immediate vicinity of the screw
> that went missing. (I'm assuming the actual load isn't much, maybe
> because the CPU is in a power-saving mode, or the customer bought way
> too big a power supply because "more is better".)
> ...
>
> That's not even implementable for shorts applied with power on, only
> for shorts present before power so the power supply will stay at low
> voltage and current. There is enough energy stored in capacitors to
> vaporize a printed-circuit trace regardless of anything the power
> supply can do.
>
> Perhaps we are talking about different things. I gladly concede that
> the power supply won't be damaged, or can and should be designed such
> that it won't. I suppose this only costs series and bypass diodes,
> and higher voltage rating on main output rectifier.
> ...
>
> Misses the worst case for the power supply transistor, though. Heat
> dissipated in a linear regulator (typically used for all but the highest
> current outputs) peaks at a voltage somewhat below nominal, into an
> overload that isn't a full short circuit.
>
> Again, the load may be damaged by conditions that the supply withstands.
> Printed circuits aren't designed to survive much more current than they
> consume.
> ...
>
> We should stick closer to that topic. ...

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

w_tom wrote:
> Same applies to hardware damaged by a virus. If a virus damages
> hardware, then hardware is defective by design. What did manufacturer
> numerical specs say? Well if specs do not claim to meet industry
> standards, then why should hardware survive? Missing specs may identify
> the exception. Virus should not damage properly designed hardware.

The flash-upgradable BIOS is an industry standard that creates the
opportunity for malware to make major or subtle changes to system
behavior that will persist even through a reinstall of the software.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

But again, what can change in the Flash BIOS? It can change
insutructions (machine code) for the processor to execute. But does
that cause damage? Again, CPU can execute any instruction in any order
without damage. Peripheral chip registers cannot be loaded with
hardware destructive values.

One condition can cause computer problems. BIOS code can be changed
so that it does not execute - does a software crash. This is not
hardware destructive. Hardware acts as if defective until BIOS is
reloaded. Some machines did not have provisions to reload defective
BIOS. Newer machines did.

So yes, it is possible to destroy the BIOS and cause computer
failure. But this does not cause hardware damage. Any machine code
instruction (in BIOS) can be executed in any order and will not cause
hardware damage.

Robert Mabee wrote:
> The flash-upgradable BIOS is an industry standard that creates the
> opportunity for malware to make major or subtle changes to system
> behavior that will persist even through a reinstall of the software.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Again, wrong software in BIOS is not and does not create hardware
damage. Re-flash the BIOS and computer works just fine. Many
computer BIOS can be reflashed without vendor assistance. But again,
we are discussing sufficiently designed hardware. Cost of repair is
also completely irrelevant. The point: hardware is not damaged;
nothing burned up. Remember Mike's original question:
> Consider a hypothetical computer virus that would cause a
> CPU to overheat and burn up. Is this possible?

Virus may also damage Operating System. Cost of damage would be much
higher. Repair may means hundreds of dollars for a disk recovery
service. This virus damage also is not hardware damage. Virus cannot
burn up CPU. Hardware design means a virus cannot damage hardware.

'Overheat signaling' does not involve software. If processor
overheats, then processor automatically throttles back or shuts down -
a hardware function completely independent of software. Signaling is
not accessible by 'machine code' in a virus. Overheat protection and
other hardware functions are implemented in hardware. 'Machine
code' instructions (from virus or other software) cannot damage
hardware if machine is properly constructed.

What happens when wrong HAL layer gets loaded for Windows NT
operating system? 'Machine code' instructions are loading wrong values
in registers. Will hardware be damage? Of course not. Hardware will
not operate; may even require expensive assistance. But again,
'machine code' instructions do not harm hardware. Defined is how
hardware engineers design products. Hardware defines what software
(virus or Operating System) can and cannot do. No hardware engineer
would intentionally design hardware that user software (virus or
Operating System) can damage. Legacy in today's computers (why we
don't design whole new computers from scratch) are why hardware
design is so software resilient.

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> w_tom wrote:
>> But again, what can change in the Flash BIOS? It can change
>> insutructions (machine code) for the processor to execute. But does
>> that cause damage?
>
> The computer won't boot again, and without proper procedure (recovery flash
> from a pre-prepared floppy disk in a floppy drive), a repair will be
> needed. Flashing the firmware of various drives and cards requires repair
> from the vendor itself, so yes, this is a costly damage.
> ...
>
> IBTD. Just disable the overheat signalling.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> It is. How do you think all those fan control software packages work?

What happens when, for example, fan stops working on the CPU? CPU
either throttles back or shuts down without damage. Do not confuse a
computer crash with physical hardware damage.

Many assume if a computer crashes due to heat, then hardware has been
damaged. Heat is actually a diagnostic tool. Long before anything can
get hot enough to cause damage, the system crashes. Those fans are
mostly so that computer will not crash (without hardware damage). And
yet myths promote those fans as if hardware damage will otherwise
occur.

Heat finds defective hardware. Put a hairdryer on high and
selectively heat everything inside the computer to find defective
hardware. That's right. Heat is an excellent diagnostic tool to find
a component that is failing. Long before heat causes hardware damage,
the system has crashed. Thermal cutoff is a hardware function
installed in any chip that might be physically damaged by too much
heat. Cut off those fans and the system may only crash.

Unfortunately many who never learned this will 'fix' a computer with
more fans. IOW, instead of replacing a failing component, they install
more fans to 'cure the symptom' - mask a defective part. If airflow is
restricted, will the chip burn up? Of course not. Long before the
chip gets physically damaged by heat, the computer has crashed.

So if a virus shuts down fans, then what happens? Computer crashes.
Yes, the repair may get very expensive because the problem would be so
difficult to find - so rare. Not expensive because hardware was
damaged. Expensive because a human needs so much time and trouble
finding a software problem that causes a crash.

And again, CPU does not burn up. Hardware functions inside the CPU
(even dating back to 1980s for Intel CPUs) implement 'overheat
protection'. Self protection that does not use 'machine code' software
- that is implemented totally in hardware.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Sebastian Gottschalk writes:

>> Signaling is not accessible by 'machine code' in a virus.

>It is. How do you think all those fan control software packages work?

There are several different implementations.

There are there were the BIOS controls the FAN directly and there
is no intervention of the OS.

And then there are those were the BIOS generates events for the OS
and the OS has to actively control the fan speeds.

On PCs this is all handled by ACPI; as an OS developer I have
worked on some of the ACPI codes and we did find systems which would
overheat and shut off when the OS does not handle this properly.

Unfortunately, we've found that there are systems were such a
hard off switch does not occur or not soon enough; and the system either
stops working or its lifetime is shortened.

Specifically in the realm of passive cooling the OS generally has a
say and if the OS ignores the BIOS (or a virus makes it ignore the BIOS),
this usually does not bode well the life expectency of the system.

Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> And again, it seems like you've never been in the hardware business. One
> has even seen PCB boards being enflamed.

Amazing how observation alone is sufficient for a fact. Well the
hardware failed internally. Then a resulting short caused heat and a
fire. For your statement to be true, then this scenario could never
happen.

Meanwhile, long before they put a hole there is where I bought my
first transistor. The hole? They removed those electronic stores, dug
a hole, and put something there called a World Trade Center. Be very
careful about wild accusations. Failure was followed by excessive heat
from a short circuit - and then maybe flames.

Meanwhile, a virus does not burn a CPU.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> And again, it seems like you've never been in the hardware business. One
> has even seen PCB boards being enflamed.

Amazing how observation alone is sufficient for a fact. Well the
hardware failed internally. Then a resulting short caused heat and a
fire. For your statement to be true, then this scenario could never
happen.

Meanwhile, long before they put a hole there is where I bought my
first transistor. The hole? They removed those electronic stores, dug
a hole, and put something there called a World Trade Center. Be very
careful about wild accusations. Failure was followed by excessive heat
from a short circuit - and then maybe flames.

Meanwhile, a virus does not burn a CPU.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

w_tom wrote:
> Again, wrong software in BIOS is not and does not create hardware
> damage. Re-flash the BIOS and computer works just fine. Many
> computer BIOS can be reflashed without vendor assistance. But again,
> we are discussing sufficiently designed hardware. Cost of repair is
> also completely irrelevant. The point: hardware is not damaged;
> nothing burned up. Remember Mike's original question:
> > Consider a hypothetical computer virus that would cause a
> > CPU to overheat and burn up. Is this possible?
>
> Virus may also damage Operating System. Cost of damage would be much
> higher. Repair may means hundreds of dollars for a disk recovery
> service. This virus damage also is not hardware damage. Virus cannot
> burn up CPU. Hardware design means a virus cannot damage hardware.
>
> 'Overheat signaling' does not involve software. If processor
> overheats, then processor automatically throttles back or shuts down -
> a hardware function completely independent of software. Signaling is
> not accessible by 'machine code' in a virus. Overheat protection and
> other hardware functions are implemented in hardware. 'Machine
> code' instructions (from virus or other software) cannot damage
> hardware if machine is properly constructed.
>
> What happens when wrong HAL layer gets loaded for Windows NT
> operating system? 'Machine code' instructions are loading wrong values
> in registers. Will hardware be damage? Of course not. Hardware will
> not operate; may even require expensive assistance. But again,
> 'machine code' instructions do not harm hardware. Defined is how
> hardware engineers design products. Hardware defines what software
> (virus or Operating System) can and cannot do. No hardware engineer
> would intentionally design hardware that user software (virus or
> Operating System) can damage. Legacy in today's computers (why we
> don't design whole new computers from scratch) are why hardware
> design is so software resilient.
>

So are you saying there is NO WAY for ANY virus to POSSIBLY damage
today's hardware unless either there was a manufacturing defect or a
built-in auto destruct system?

> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> > w_tom wrote:
> >> But again, what can change in the Flash BIOS? It can change
> >> insutructions (machine code) for the processor to execute. But does
> >> that cause damage?
> >
> > The computer won't boot again, and without proper procedure (recovery flash
> > from a pre-prepared floppy disk in a floppy drive), a repair will be
> > needed. Flashing the firmware of various drives and cards requires repair
> > from the vendor itself, so yes, this is a costly damage.
> > ...
> >
> > IBTD. Just disable the overheat signalling.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
> Sebastian Gottschalk writes:
>
> >> Signaling is not accessible by 'machine code' in a virus.
>
> >It is. How do you think all those fan control software packages work?
>
> There are several different implementations.
>
> There are there were the BIOS controls the FAN directly and there
> is no intervention of the OS.
>
> And then there are those were the BIOS generates events for the OS
> and the OS has to actively control the fan speeds.
>
> On PCs this is all handled by ACPI; as an OS developer I have
> worked on some of the ACPI codes and we did find systems which would
> overheat and shut off when the OS does not handle this properly.
>
> Unfortunately, we've found that there are systems were such a
> hard off switch does not occur or not soon enough; and the system either
> stops working or its lifetime is shortened.
>
> Specifically in the realm of passive cooling the OS generally has a
> say and if the OS ignores the BIOS (or a virus makes it ignore the BIOS),
> this usually does not bode well the life expectency of the system.
>

But could such damage be done on the average PC nowadays by a virus?
Is there anything that a virus can do to the average PC that could
possibly
force a replacement of hardware?

> Casper
> --
> Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
> to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
> Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
> be fiction rather than truth.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

"w_tom" writes:
>Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:

>> And again, it seems like you've never been in the hardware business. One
>> has even seen PCB boards being enflamed.

> Amazing how observation alone is sufficient for a fact.

A single observation is sufficient to disprove YOUR theory that a
virus can't kill hardware.

> Well the
>hardware failed internally. Then a resulting short caused heat and a
>fire. For your statement to be true, then this scenario could never
>happen.

> Meanwhile, long before they put a hole there is where I bought my
>first transistor. The hole?

Must be the hole you're digging for yourself.


--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us,
X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

mike4ty4@yahoo.com writes:

>But could such damage be done on the average PC nowadays by a virus?
>Is there anything that a virus can do to the average PC that could
>possibly force a replacement of hardware?

I'm not sure what the "average PC" is nowadays.

I'm certain that some systems can be destroyed by software errors;
that such errors could be made deliberately by virus authors.

But I don't think this would be more than a small proportion of
systems.

If you want to destroy a system, I would target the weakest bits:
the ubiquitous flash chips, particularly those on harddisks.

Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> But could such damage be done on the average PC nowadays by a
> virus? Is there anything that a virus can do to the average PC that
> could possibly force a replacement of hardware?

Notice those thousands of viruses doing so much hardware damage. The
glaring hole in Sebastian's comments is the one missing example after
so many hundreds of thousands of viruses. According to Sebastian, this
damage is easy. Fine. So where are the hundreds of examples?
Sebastian's reasons for how a virus can harm hardware are easy to
implement if viruses can damage hardware. Therefore numerous examples
should exist. Why does it know it can happen and yet does not provide
any example? Are virus writers too moral to harm hardware?

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

"w_tom" writes:

> Notice those thousands of viruses doing so much hardware damage. The
>glaring hole in Sebastian's comments is the one missing example after
>so many hundreds of thousands of viruses. According to Sebastian, this
>damage is easy. Fine. So where are the hundreds of examples?
>Sebastian's reasons for how a virus can harm hardware are easy to
>implement if viruses can damage hardware. Therefore numerous examples
>should exist. Why does it know it can happen and yet does not provide
>any example? Are virus writers too moral to harm hardware?

Because the virus writes make money of their viruses by
not hurting their victims too much.

They strive for symbiosis; the incentive is $$; most virus now are
used for:
DDoS zombies
SPAM bots
popup adds.


Dead computers don't make money.

The second reason is the diversity of PCs; you will need a specific
exploit to kill PCs for each of:

- different FLASH chips on the motherboard
- different harddisk types

and a very specific one for those systems which require the OS
to "keep things cool". And the writing of such viruses costs
actual hardware; you can't test it without breaking actual pieces.
of hardware. So you need a great variety of systems to make even
a little bit of impact and you need to be willing to destroy it.

So it only makes sense for the weapons labs of nation states to
develop such killer viruses. Making and testing one will set
you back many thousands.

Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > But could such damage be done on the average PC nowadays by a virus?
> > Is there anything that a virus can do to the average PC that could
> > possibly force a replacement of hardware?
>
> As already stated: You can flash the firmware of about any device. The
> repair can usually only be done at the manufacturer, and the costs
> sometimes exceed the price of a new device.

Are there viruses or worms out there that do that? I know CIH/Chernobyl
does
it to the BIOS chip, but only for specific models. Does this mean that
any virus
designed for maximum damage would have to contain specialized routines
for
nearly every piece of hardware in use? Would it be possible to have a
virus
that could hit 95% of the PCs out there and wreck ALL their flash
chips?
Why do hardware manufacturers make it so that software on the computer
can perform the reflashings, anyway??? That's a security vulnerability
if there
ever was one.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> w_tom wrote:
>
> > mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> But could such damage be done on the average PC nowadays by a
> >> virus? Is there anything that a virus can do to the average PC that
> >> could possibly force a replacement of hardware?
> >
> > Notice those thousands of viruses doing so much hardware damage. The
> > glaring hole in Sebastian's comments is the one missing example after
> > so many hundreds of thousands of viruses. According to Sebastian, this
> > damage is easy. Fine. So where are the hundreds of examples?
>
> The CIH virus overwrites the BIOS.
>
> > Sebastian's reasons for how a virus can harm hardware are easy to
> > implement if viruses can damage hardware. Therefore numerous examples
> > should exist.
>
> Are you twisting "should" and "could".
>
> > Are virus writers too moral to harm hardware?
>
> No. Basically, damaging the hardware violates the goal of a virus to a)
> spread further b) use the computer's resources for other activies (sending
> spam, DDos, ...). That's why no-one is interest in actually creating such
> damage.

But can't the virus also be designed for pure wanton violence? What
happened to the pure-destruction viruses? Ie. it would spread and
spread, and then when a specific date rolls around, the "time bomb"
goes off and the computers are destroyed. And if you can get a
server's hardware to autodestruct, you do not need DDOS attacks...
Therefore destroying the hardware may not be very easy to do...
Viruses have been made that wipe hard disks, destroying any useful
information in the process, so why can't they destroy hardware that's
vulnerable? Perhaps hardware is tougher than you think? Also,
wouldn't a military virus that destroys hardware be a useful weapon,
to disable enemy computers? Perhaps maybe then such viruses DO
exist... it's just that the US Government doesn't want us to know about
them... Figures. The gov't is probably always 1-2 steps ahead of what
we know about. This of course leads me to an interesting question: Do
CPU manufacturers make "military editions" of their chips that are
faster
and better than the chips you can buy in the store?

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Casper H.S. Dik wrote:
> "w_tom" writes:
>
> > Notice those thousands of viruses doing so much hardware damage. The
> >glaring hole in Sebastian's comments is the one missing example after
> >so many hundreds of thousands of viruses. According to Sebastian, this
> >damage is easy. Fine. So where are the hundreds of examples?
> >Sebastian's reasons for how a virus can harm hardware are easy to
> >implement if viruses can damage hardware. Therefore numerous examples
> >should exist. Why does it know it can happen and yet does not provide
> >any example? Are virus writers too moral to harm hardware?
>
> Because the virus writes make money of their viruses by
> not hurting their victims too much.
>
> They strive for symbiosis; the incentive is $$; most virus now are
> used for:
> DDoS zombies
> SPAM bots
> popup adds.
>
>
> Dead computers don't make money.
>
> The second reason is the diversity of PCs; you will need a specific
> exploit to kill PCs for each of:
>
> - different FLASH chips on the motherboard
> - different harddisk types
>
> and a very specific one for those systems which require the OS
> to "keep things cool". And the writing of such viruses costs
> actual hardware; you can't test it without breaking actual pieces.
> of hardware. So you need a great variety of systems to make even
> a little bit of impact and you need to be willing to destroy it.
>
> So it only makes sense for the weapons labs of nation states to
> develop such killer viruses. Making and testing one will set
> you back many thousands.
>

So basically people (except perhaps for the military) have lost
interest
in wanton destruction and simple vandalism and have now decided to
go and exploit systems for money? Why didn't many HW-destroying
viruses exist when people still made 'em for destruction?

> Casper
> --
> Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
> to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
> Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
> be fiction rather than truth.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

mike4ty4@yahoo.com writes:

>So basically people (except perhaps for the military) have lost
>interest
>in wanton destruction and simple vandalism and have now decided to
>go and exploit systems for money? Why didn't many HW-destroying
>viruses exist when people still made 'em for destruction?

You didn't read the second part of my email?

The cost of writing such viruses is prohibitive if you want
decent coverage (and some viruses which destroy firmware
do exist)

Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Sebastian Gottschalk writes:

>Huh? On Windows you've got ASPI and SPTI. Or you simply load your own
>driver. After all, you only have to keep things cool if you don't want to
>end up with a messed-up firmware. Who cares for a memory relocation? Just
>makes another bunch of garbage overwrite the firmware.

Most hardware does this automatically and can't be broken in that
way.

(And testing of the virus is still expensive)

Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Again, original question was about hardware damage. Virus unique to
that hardware might harm a BIOS software. Software that is part of
firmware. But no hardware - even hardware that contains BIOS code - is
damaged. No hardware was damaged by the virus. ICs still function as
they did from the IC factory. Part designed by hardware designers is
not damaged by viruses.

Again, the original question was not about viruses that can attack
software or firmware. Original question did not ask about sending
computer back to the factory. To cite a virus that can damage, one must
change the original question. Hardware in retail products is designed
to be software resilient. Software - be it a virus, misloaded code
such as the HAL, or even a wrong BIOS - must not damage hardware.
Malware can damage software in a disk or might damage software in
firmware. But that is not hardware damage even if repair means sending
it back to the factory.

Military versions of ICs function same (unless, of course, hardware
is a special function IC executing something unique such as an
encryption algorithm). Military ICs perform same functions, but in
more harsh environments. Most notable difference between a commercial
version and a military version is operating temperature range.
Aerospace vehicles also use same ICs. But aerospace version is
typically a military version IC tested for space radiation exposure.
Many aerospace vehicles only use fully qualified ICs that have been
well proven first in regular commercial applications. These are not
specially manufactured ICs. These are simply same IC design that has
been 'fully qualified'.

For example, spacecraft don't use advanced Pentium processors.
Spacecraft use 8086 or 68000 version processors that have been well
proven in retail and commercial applications AND then were qualified
(tested) for space operation. Commercial grade ICs function same as
their military versions because software cannot harm even a commercial
version of the integrated circuit (hardware).

This reply answers an original question about viruses harming
hardware. Others are now citing malware harming software. That is not
the original question. Furthermore, harming firmware is made more
difficult as designers learned from their mistakes - as hardware
designers already have. Viruses do not easily attack firmware or HAL
software (which are unique for that hardware design). Even if these
software are violated, still, hardware damage must not occur. That is
required of and is well proven by legacy of hardware design. Just
another reason why computers change so little over decades. So much
legacy exists in all computer designs for so many reasons. Design so
that software cannot cause hardware damage.

mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> But can't the virus also be designed for pure wanton violence? What
> happened to the pure-destruction viruses? Ie. it would spread and
> spread, and then when a specific date rolls around, the "time bomb"
> goes off and the computers are destroyed. And if you can get a
> server's hardware to autodestruct, you do not need DDOS attacks...
> Therefore destroying the hardware may not be very easy to do...
> Viruses have been made that wipe hard disks, destroying any useful
> information in the process, so why can't they destroy hardware that's
> vulnerable? Perhaps hardware is tougher than you think? Also,
> wouldn't a military virus that destroys hardware be a useful weapon,
> to disable enemy computers? Perhaps maybe then such viruses DO
> exist... it's just that the US Government doesn't want us to know about
> them... Figures. The gov't is probably always 1-2 steps ahead of what
> we know about. This of course leads me to an interesting question: Do
> CPU manufacturers make "military editions" of their chips that are
> faster and better than the chips you can buy in the store?

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

w_tom wrote:
> Again, original question was about hardware damage.
[deleted]
> Again, the original question was not about viruses that can attack
> software or firmware. Original question did not ask about sending
> computer back to the factory.
[deleted]
> This reply answers an original question about viruses harming
> hardware. Others are now citing malware harming software. That is not
> the original question.
[deleted]

Can you please pay attention? Never mind the "original question"! You
are responding to the original *questioner*. Respond to his (*new*)
posting or don't, but don't respond saying you don't.

Probably you wouldn't have this problem if you responded in the usual
interleaved (quote-response, quote-response, ...) way, instead of
top-posting.

> mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> > But can't the virus also be designed for pure wanton violence? What
> > happened to the pure-destruction viruses? Ie. it would spread and
> > spread, and then when a specific date rolls around, the "time bomb"
> > goes off and the computers are destroyed. And if you can get a
> > server's hardware to autodestruct, you do not need DDOS attacks...
> > Therefore destroying the hardware may not be very easy to do...
> > Viruses have been made that wipe hard disks, destroying any useful
> > information in the process, so why can't they destroy hardware that's
> > vulnerable? Perhaps hardware is tougher than you think? Also,
> > wouldn't a military virus that destroys hardware be a useful weapon,
> > to disable enemy computers? Perhaps maybe then such viruses DO
> > exist... it's just that the US Government doesn't want us to know about
> > them... Figures. The gov't is probably always 1-2 steps ahead of what
> > we know about. This of course leads me to an interesting question: Do
> > CPU manufacturers make "military editions" of their chips that are
> > faster and better than the chips you can buy in the store?

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

w_tom wrote:
> Again, original question was about hardware damage. Virus unique to
> that hardware might harm a BIOS software. Software that is part of
> firmware. But no hardware - even hardware that contains BIOS code - is
> damaged. No hardware was damaged by the virus. ICs still function as
> they did from the IC factory. Part designed by hardware designers is
> not damaged by viruses.
>
> Again, the original question was not about viruses that can attack
> software or firmware. Original question did not ask about sending
> computer back to the factory. To cite a virus that can damage, one must
> change the original question. Hardware in retail products is designed
> to be software resilient. Software - be it a virus, misloaded code
> such as the HAL, or even a wrong BIOS - must not damage hardware.
> Malware can damage software in a disk or might damage software in
> firmware. But that is not hardware damage even if repair means sending
> it back to the factory.
>
> Military versions of ICs function same (unless, of course, hardware
> is a special function IC executing something unique such as an
> encryption algorithm). Military ICs perform same functions, but in
> more harsh environments. Most notable difference between a commercial
> version and a military version is operating temperature range.
> Aerospace vehicles also use same ICs. But aerospace version is
> typically a military version IC tested for space radiation exposure.
> Many aerospace vehicles only use fully qualified ICs that have been
> well proven first in regular commercial applications. These are not
> specially manufactured ICs. These are simply same IC design that has
> been 'fully qualified'.
>
> For example, spacecraft don't use advanced Pentium processors.
> Spacecraft use 8086 or 68000 version processors that have been well
> proven in retail and commercial applications AND then were qualified
> (tested) for space operation. Commercial grade ICs function same as
> their military versions because software cannot harm even a commercial
> version of the integrated circuit (hardware).
>
> This reply answers an original question about viruses harming
> hardware. Others are now citing malware harming software. That is not
> the original question. Furthermore, harming firmware is made more
> difficult as designers learned from their mistakes - as hardware
> designers already have. Viruses do not easily attack firmware or HAL
> software (which are unique for that hardware design). Even if these
> software are violated, still, hardware damage must not occur. That is
> required of and is well proven by legacy of hardware design. Just
> another reason why computers change so little over decades. So much
> legacy exists in all computer designs for so many reasons. Design so
> that software cannot cause hardware damage.
>

So then, basically, it would be very difficult to write a virus that
could attack
95% of the firmware out there and thus require 95% of infected systems
to
be sent back to the factory (which is what I had in mind when I asked
the
original question -- a virus that would demand factory return.), or
have parts
replaced, etc., and almost impossible to damage hardware physically
with
the virus, right?

You mentioned about spacecraft not using advanced Pentium processors,
only 8086s. But what if they needed more computing power? 8086 is a
very
slow processor and is only useful for relatively simple things. Even
though
they might not need it now, what if they do in the future?

I also needed to know about the motivation to make the virus thing,
where
I asked about the military. Could it be possible that the military has
a virus
that can damage hardware or otherwise mandate physical repair
procedures?

Also, though, for military computers used for doing complex
calculations or
other intense activities, including supercomputers, is it possible that
the chip companies manufacture "souped-up" chips for THOSE computers?


> mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> > But can't the virus also be designed for pure wanton violence? What
> > happened to the pure-destruction viruses? Ie. it would spread and
> > spread, and then when a specific date rolls around, the "time bomb"
> > goes off and the computers are destroyed. And if you can get a
> > server's hardware to autodestruct, you do not need DDOS attacks...
> > Therefore destroying the hardware may not be very easy to do...
> > Viruses have been made that wipe hard disks, destroying any useful
> > information in the process, so why can't they destroy hardware that's
> > vulnerable? Perhaps hardware is tougher than you think? Also,
> > wouldn't a military virus that destroys hardware be a useful weapon,
> > to disable enemy computers? Perhaps maybe then such viruses DO
> > exist... it's just that the US Government doesn't want us to know about
> > them... Figures. The gov't is probably always 1-2 steps ahead of what
> > we know about. This of course leads me to an interesting question: Do
> > CPU manufacturers make "military editions" of their chips that are
> > faster and better than the chips you can buy in the store?

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>> For example, spacecraft don't use advanced Pentium processors.
>> Spacecraft use 8086 or 68000 version processors that have been well
>> proven in retail and commercial applications AND then were qualified
>> (tested) for space operation.
>
> The main reason is that they're cheap.

Apparently you have not worked in and meet requirements for aerospace.
Getting a semiconductor 'fully qualitifed' is not cheap.

Why did the Space Shuttle fly using computers with iron core memories
for the first ten years? Getting electronics qualified for aerospace
is expensive and time consuming. Slow and obsolete core memory based
computers were 'fully qualitifed" then. And they were not cheap.

Hardware that is not damaged by software is easy compared to other
hardware requirements. Software (virus or bug) must not harm hardware.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:

> w_tom wrote:
>
>> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>>>> For example, spacecraft don't use advanced Pentium processors.
>>>> Spacecraft use 8086 or 68000 version processors that have been well
>>>> proven in retail and commercial applications AND then were qualified
>>>> (tested) for space operation.
>>>
>>> The main reason is that they're cheap.
>>
>> Apparently you have not worked in and meet requirements for aerospace.
>> Getting a semiconductor 'fully qualitifed' is not cheap.
>
> Again: They could also use qualified and long-tested modern
> high-performance chips. Instead they resort to using way more old and slow
> chips.

No. In space you need rad-hard chips. And it's not enough to package the
chip better, you have to redesign the silicon to be tolerant to occasional
charged particles that hit the chips anyway. The market for those chips is
so small that you just can't get the latest and shiniest processors. In
many cases you don't even need them. The bottleneck isn't processing power
(except maybe in imaging), it's in communications.

-- Lassi

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

For a longest time, satellites, et al did not have computer
(microprocessors) or even encryption. Satellites were a gentleman's
game even during the Cold War. Most processing was performed on earth.
A satellite had only enough intelligence to maintain itself for short
periods. Electronics was the simplest and the least complex possible.

Later, simple processors were installed only for station keeping -
only to increase reliability. I suspect TDRSS (NASA's communication
satellite system) may have been a first to use intelligent processing
for data - satellite operating as a switch and not as a repeater.
However that is the trend. Electronics in aerospace is the simplest,
old, and well understood because reliability and being 'fully
qualified' are so critical. To put something more advanced means there
was no alternative. Only then was massive money spent to qualify a new
part.

When more processing power is required, an expensive process would be
used to qualify a newer and yet well proven processor. So designers
kept most intelligent functions on earth. Yes, slowly more robust
processors make it into space. But rarely is anything 'state of the
art' in aerospace. 'Reliability' is a far larger consideration which
often means old and well proven hardware. Processing power of one
astronaut's laptop is far more powerful than all Shuttle computers
combined. That laptop need not be reliable. Those shuttle computers
must be extremely reliable - and still they sometimes fail. Therefore
the Shuttle has five computers making flight decisions. A poll
determines which three will be believed. Again, it's about
reliability and why those computers have so little processing power.


Viruses that attack firmware have even been shipped (unknowingly) by
the computer manufacturer. Such viruses, although rare, have been
observed (and manufacturers don't like to talk about it). But again,
no hardware damage.

Cited previously was the case where a monitor signal too high in
frequency could cause monitor damage. So yes, sometimes a designer
does make a mistake, the lessons learned, and hardware fixed so that
software cannot cause damage.

We also built customized equipment where a software bug could cause
relay damage. But again, this was customized equipment AND restricted
users also had no access to embedded software. Software was embedded
so that damage could not result from user programming. Even customized
equipment makes hardware as resilient as possible to software failure
or malware.

The context is not such custom equipment. This context is consumer
computers. Consumer electronics is designed so that software cannot
harm hardware. Consumer equipment must be that 'idiot proof'.

More complex and custom equipment can be harmed if the attacker has
very specific engineering knowledge of that item; a specific item
targeted. Specific engineering knowledge is what a virus writer must
have to specifically attack firmware for a specific machine. These
customized machines were designed so that software could not cause
hardware damage. But then some functions might not be so robust
because costs would be so high and because of the unique customized
nature of its function. It is possible to put a virus into a robot so
that robot destroys its own arms. But then good luck trying to do it.
It is possible, but ....

Supercomputers are a different environment. The days of customize
hardware (ie Cray XMPs) are gone. Same processor chips built for
commercial purposes now are used in supercomputers where numbers of
processors - not specialized functions - are the objective. Most
'souped up' chips are sold in the market. An example: Sony Playstation
3. This new hardware is also challenging how software can utilize the
power - creates a massive challenge to software engineers.

Don't assume that because it is a nuclear missile, then it must have
the most advanced electronics. Instead, it will have the most
'reliable' electronics. Each market has different parameter
requirements. Sony Playstation 3 would be far too unreliable for
aerospace use.

But consumer electronics is carefully designed so that software will
not damage hardware. Computers are legacy designs where most of the
machine is simply a faster version of the same thing done a decade ago.
That legacy requirement is important because of what the market
demands of consumer electronics - where everything is a black box and
the retail 'computer expert' does not even know what a power supply
does. In such markets, hardware is designed so that software (viruses,
bugs, and mistakes) cannot damage hardware.

mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> So then, basically, it would be very difficult to write a virus that
> could attack 95% of the firmware out there and thus require
> 95% of infected systems to be sent back to the factory (which
> is what I had in mind when I asked the original question -- a
> virus that would demand factory return.), or have parts
> replaced, etc., and almost impossible to damage hardware
> physically with the virus, right?
>
> You mentioned about spacecraft not using advanced Pentium
> processors, only 8086s. But what if they needed more
> computing power? 8086 is a very slow processor and is only
> useful for relatively simple things. Even though they might not
> need it now, what if they do in the future?
>
> I also needed to know about the motivation to make the virus
> thing, where I asked about the military. Could it be possible
> that the military has a virus that can damage hardware or
> otherwise mandate physical repair procedures?
>
> Also, though, for military computers used for doing complex
> calculations or other intense activities, including
> supercomputers, is it possible that the chip companies
> manufacture "souped-up" chips for THOSE computers?

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Use more of them. 50 8068s at 1 MHz are cheaper than 1 Pentium at 50 MHz.

Again Sebastian demonstrates little experience. He is making
conclusions without sufficient knowledge. 50 8086s would significantly
increase weight both in CPUs and their supporting platforms, and in
increased power for all those CPUs. Cheaper is not about the price of
that CPU. Costs are a 'system wide' analysis. Sebastian apparently
has not yet worked at the 'system design' level and has never worked in
aerospace. Rad-hardened is part of getting hardware 'fully qualified'.
Just getting the part qualified is major costs.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Why should weight be a problem?

Lowering weight is critical in spacecraft design. For example, every
pound of electronics eliminated means another pound of hydrazine fuel.
More fuel means spacecraft has longer life expectancy. Spacecraft
builders earn bonus money every year the bird lasts beyond its life
expectancy.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Lassi Hippeläinen wrote:
>
>> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>>
>>> w_tom wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>>>>>> For example, spacecraft don't use advanced Pentium processors.
>>>>>> Spacecraft use 8086 or 68000 version processors that have been well
>>>>>> proven in retail and commercial applications AND then were qualified
>>>>>> (tested) for space operation.
>>>>> The main reason is that they're cheap.
>>>> Apparently you have not worked in and meet requirements for aerospace.
>>>> Getting a semiconductor 'fully qualitifed' is not cheap.
>>> Again: They could also use qualified and long-tested modern
>>> high-performance chips. Instead they resort to using way more old and slow
>>> chips.
>> No. In space you need rad-hard chips.
>
> Who cares for what's used in space? Most of these chips are used on earth,
> for doing calculations on design or for steering.

Space was mentioned above three (3) times. The old but reliable designs
are used up there.

The secretaries at the NASA headquarters use the same kind of desktops
as anybody else. A computer doesn't become "aerospace" just by being
used by someone whose paycheck comes from NASA.

-- Lassi

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> OK, and why should spacecraft designers care for computers that are only
> used on earth's ground?

Again, the word is reliability. Designs must be functionally well
proven AND use parts that are 'fully qualified'. Speed of computer
chip is not as important as design been well proven AND money already
spent to have a part 'fully qualified'.

Any complicated computations are better performed on earth.

Again, electronics for different environments - space, military, or
retail - have different parameters. Furthermore, most all electronics
is redundant. Function of an IC for military or aerospace is more
often a same function found previously in retail products. IC
certified for harsh environments may take many years to eventually be
'fully qualified'. By that time, hardware is considered obsolete in a
retail marketplace.

Meanwhile, a legacy from retail designs (ie hardware that is not
harmed by software) is later incorporated in those 'harsh environment'
designs. 'High tech' contains mostly legacy designs with a few
innovations. If a completely new design is defective (if software can
harm the hardware), then the concept called legacy corrects that
problem and verifies it does not happen again. Then hardware is ready
for other environments. Again, the word is reliability.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Lassi Hippeläinen wrote:
> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>
> > w_tom wrote:
> >
> >> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> >>>> For example, spacecraft don't use advanced Pentium processors.
> >>>> Spacecraft use 8086 or 68000 version processors that have been well
> >>>> proven in retail and commercial applications AND then were qualified
> >>>> (tested) for space operation.
> >>>
> >>> The main reason is that they're cheap.
> >>
> >> Apparently you have not worked in and meet requirements for aerospace.
> >> Getting a semiconductor 'fully qualitifed' is not cheap.
> >
> > Again: They could also use qualified and long-tested modern
> > high-performance chips. Instead they resort to using way more old and s=
low
> > chips.
>
> No. In space you need rad-hard chips. And it's not enough to package the
> chip better, you have to redesign the silicon to be tolerant to occasional
> charged particles that hit the chips anyway. The market for those chips is
> so small that you just can't get the latest and shiniest processors. In
> many cases you don't even need them. The bottleneck isn't processing power
> (except maybe in imaging), it's in communications.
>

The gov can't even get them to build one as part of some sort of
special contract
or something?

> -- Lassi

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

w_tom wrote:
> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> > OK, and why should spacecraft designers care for computers that are only
> > used on earth's ground?
>
> Again, the word is reliability. Designs must be functionally well
> proven AND use parts that are 'fully qualified'. Speed of computer
> chip is not as important as design been well proven AND money already
> spent to have a part 'fully qualified'.
>

Oh, so it would cost too much then to have a fast processor built and
"fully
qualified"?

> Any complicated computations are better performed on earth.
>
> Again, electronics for different environments - space, military, or
> retail - have different parameters. Furthermore, most all electronics
> is redundant. Function of an IC for military or aerospace is more
> often a same function found previously in retail products. IC
> certified for harsh environments may take many years to eventually be
> 'fully qualified'. By that time, hardware is considered obsolete in a
> retail marketplace.
>
> Meanwhile, a legacy from retail designs (ie hardware that is not
> harmed by software) is later incorporated in those 'harsh environment'
> designs. 'High tech' contains mostly legacy designs with a few
> innovations. If a completely new design is defective (if software can
> harm the hardware), then the concept called legacy corrects that
> problem and verifies it does not happen again. Then hardware is ready
> for other environments. Again, the word is reliability.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

w_tom wrote:
> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> > OK, and why should spacecraft designers care for computers that are only
> > used on earth's ground?
>
> Again, the word is reliability. Designs must be functionally well
> proven AND use parts that are 'fully qualified'. Speed of computer
> chip is not as important as design been well proven AND money already
> spent to have a part 'fully qualified'.
>
> Any complicated computations are better performed on earth.
>
> Again, electronics for different environments - space, military, or
> retail - have different parameters. Furthermore, most all electronics
> is redundant. Function of an IC for military or aerospace is more
> often a same function found previously in retail products. IC
> certified for harsh environments may take many years to eventually be
> 'fully qualified'. By that time, hardware is considered obsolete in a
> retail marketplace.
>
> Meanwhile, a legacy from retail designs (ie hardware that is not
> harmed by software) is later incorporated in those 'harsh environment'
> designs. 'High tech' contains mostly legacy designs with a few
> innovations. If a completely new design is defective (if software can
> harm the hardware), then the concept called legacy corrects that
> problem and verifies it does not happen again. Then hardware is ready
> for other environments. Again, the word is reliability.

Oh, so durable military computers' hardware CANNOT be destroyed by
software, then? No way no how. It is impossible as in truly, utterly,
IMPOSSIBLE.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

w_tom wrote:
> For a longest time, satellites, et al did not have computer
> (microprocessors) or even encryption. Satellites were a gentleman's
> game even during the Cold War. Most processing was performed on earth.
> A satellite had only enough intelligence to maintain itself for short
> periods. Electronics was the simplest and the least complex possible.
>
> Later, simple processors were installed only for station keeping -
> only to increase reliability. I suspect TDRSS (NASA's communication
> satellite system) may have been a first to use intelligent processing
> for data - satellite operating as a switch and not as a repeater.
> However that is the trend. Electronics in aerospace is the simplest,
> old, and well understood because reliability and being 'fully
> qualified' are so critical. To put something more advanced means there
> was no alternative. Only then was massive money spent to qualify a new
> part.
>
> When more processing power is required, an expensive process would be
> used to qualify a newer and yet well proven processor. So designers
> kept most intelligent functions on earth. Yes, slowly more robust
> processors make it into space. But rarely is anything 'state of the
> art' in aerospace. 'Reliability' is a far larger consideration which
> often means old and well proven hardware. Processing power of one
> astronaut's laptop is far more powerful than all Shuttle computers
> combined. That laptop need not be reliable. Those shuttle computers
> must be extremely reliable - and still they sometimes fail. Therefore
> the Shuttle has five computers making flight decisions. A poll
> determines which three will be believed. Again, it's about
> reliability and why those computers have so little processing power.
>
>
> Viruses that attack firmware have even been shipped (unknowingly) by
> the computer manufacturer. Such viruses, although rare, have been
> observed (and manufacturers don't like to talk about it). But again,
> no hardware damage.
>
> Cited previously was the case where a monitor signal too high in
> frequency could cause monitor damage. So yes, sometimes a designer
> does make a mistake, the lessons learned, and hardware fixed so that
> software cannot cause damage.
>
> We also built customized equipment where a software bug could cause
> relay damage. But again, this was customized equipment AND restricted
> users also had no access to embedded software. Software was embedded
> so that damage could not result from user programming. Even customized
> equipment makes hardware as resilient as possible to software failure
> or malware.
>
> The context is not such custom equipment. This context is consumer
> computers. Consumer electronics is designed so that software cannot
> harm hardware. Consumer equipment must be that 'idiot proof'.
>
> More complex and custom equipment can be harmed if the attacker has
> very specific engineering knowledge of that item; a specific item
> targeted. Specific engineering knowledge is what a virus writer must
> have to specifically attack firmware for a specific machine. These
> customized machines were designed so that software could not cause
> hardware damage. But then some functions might not be so robust
> because costs would be so high and because of the unique customized
> nature of its function. It is possible to put a virus into a robot so
> that robot destroys its own arms. But then good luck trying to do it.
> It is possible, but ....
>
> Supercomputers are a different environment. The days of customize
> hardware (ie Cray XMPs) are gone. Same processor chips built for
> commercial purposes now are used in supercomputers where numbers of
> processors - not specialized functions - are the objective. Most
> 'souped up' chips are sold in the market. An example: Sony Playstation
> 3. This new hardware is also challenging how software can utilize the
> power - creates a massive challenge to software engineers.
>
> Don't assume that because it is a nuclear missile, then it must have
> the most advanced electronics. Instead, it will have the most
> 'reliable' electronics. Each market has different parameter
> requirements. Sony Playstation 3 would be far too unreliable for
> aerospace use.
>

And nuclear missiles do not need gigantic high-power computers, so it
would be a waste of cash to get a "reliable", high-power processor
built, right? And everything is determined by the amount of available
money, and that money has to be spent wisely. Spending it on getting a
super-tough Pentium built would be a waste, when one could do fine
with something much slower.

> But consumer electronics is carefully designed so that software will
> not damage hardware. Computers are legacy designs where most of the
> machine is simply a faster version of the same thing done a decade ago.
> That legacy requirement is important because of what the market
> demands of consumer electronics - where everything is a black box and
> the retail 'computer expert' does not even know what a power supply
> does. In such markets, hardware is designed so that software (viruses,
> bugs, and mistakes) cannot damage hardware.
>

But in aerospace, etc. is the hardware used also just as impervious, if
not
more so, to software-induced destruction?

> mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> > So then, basically, it would be very difficult to write a virus that
> > could attack 95% of the firmware out there and thus require
> > 95% of infected systems to be sent back to the factory (which
> > is what I had in mind when I asked the original question -- a
> > virus that would demand factory return.), or have parts
> > replaced, etc., and almost impossible to damage hardware
> > physically with the virus, right?
> >
> > You mentioned about spacecraft not using advanced Pentium
> > processors, only 8086s. But what if they needed more
> > computing power? 8086 is a very slow processor and is only
> > useful for relatively simple things. Even though they might not
> > need it now, what if they do in the future?
> >
> > I also needed to know about the motivation to make the virus
> > thing, where I asked about the military. Could it be possible
> > that the military has a virus that can damage hardware or
> > otherwise mandate physical repair procedures?
> >
> > Also, though, for military computers used for doing complex
> > calculations or other intense activities, including
> > supercomputers, is it possible that the chip companies
> > manufacture "souped-up" chips for THOSE computers?

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

w_tom wrote:
> For a longest time, satellites, et al did not have computer
> (microprocessors) or even encryption. Satellites were a gentleman's
> game even during the Cold War. Most processing was performed on earth.
> A satellite had only enough intelligence to maintain itself for short
> periods. Electronics was the simplest and the least complex possible.
>
> Later, simple processors were installed only for station keeping -
> only to increase reliability. I suspect TDRSS (NASA's communication
> satellite system) may have been a first to use intelligent processing
> for data - satellite operating as a switch and not as a repeater.
> However that is the trend. Electronics in aerospace is the simplest,
> old, and well understood because reliability and being 'fully
> qualified' are so critical. To put something more advanced means there
> was no alternative. Only then was massive money spent to qualify a new
> part.
>
> When more processing power is required, an expensive process would be
> used to qualify a newer and yet well proven processor. So designers
> kept most intelligent functions on earth. Yes, slowly more robust
> processors make it into space. But rarely is anything 'state of the
> art' in aerospace. 'Reliability' is a far larger consideration which
> often means old and well proven hardware. Processing power of one
> astronaut's laptop is far more powerful than all Shuttle computers
> combined. That laptop need not be reliable. Those shuttle computers
> must be extremely reliable - and still they sometimes fail. Therefore
> the Shuttle has five computers making flight decisions. A poll
> determines which three will be believed. Again, it's about
> reliability and why those computers have so little processing power.
>
>
> Viruses that attack firmware have even been shipped (unknowingly) by
> the computer manufacturer. Such viruses, although rare, have been
> observed (and manufacturers don't like to talk about it). But again,
> no hardware damage.
>
> Cited previously was the case where a monitor signal too high in
> frequency could cause monitor damage. So yes, sometimes a designer
> does make a mistake, the lessons learned, and hardware fixed so that
> software cannot cause damage.
>
> We also built customized equipment where a software bug could cause
> relay damage. But again, this was customized equipment AND restricted
> users also had no access to embedded software. Software was embedded
> so that damage could not result from user programming. Even customized
> equipment makes hardware as resilient as possible to software failure
> or malware.
>
> The context is not such custom equipment. This context is consumer
> computers. Consumer electronics is designed so that software cannot
> harm hardware. Consumer equipment must be that 'idiot proof'.
>
> More complex and custom equipment can be harmed if the attacker has
> very specific engineering knowledge of that item; a specific item
> targeted. Specific engineering knowledge is what a virus writer must
> have to specifically attack firmware for a specific machine. These
> customized machines were designed so that software could not cause
> hardware damage. But then some functions might not be so robust
> because costs would be so high and because of the unique customized
> nature of its function. It is possible to put a virus into a robot so
> that robot destroys its own arms. But then good luck trying to do it.
> It is possible, but ....
>
> Supercomputers are a different environment. The days of customize
> hardware (ie Cray XMPs) are gone. Same processor chips built for
> commercial purposes now are used in supercomputers where numbers of
> processors - not specialized functions - are the objective. Most
> 'souped up' chips are sold in the market. An example: Sony Playstation
> 3. This new hardware is also challenging how software can utilize the
> power - creates a massive challenge to software engineers.
>
> Don't assume that because it is a nuclear missile, then it must have
> the most advanced electronics. Instead, it will have the most
> 'reliable' electronics. Each market has different parameter
> requirements. Sony Playstation 3 would be far too unreliable for
> aerospace use.
>
> But consumer electronics is carefully designed so that software will
> not damage hardware. Computers are legacy designs where most of the
> machine is simply a faster version of the same thing done a decade ago.
> That legacy requirement is important because of what the market
> demands of consumer electronics - where everything is a black box and
> the retail 'computer expert' does not even know what a power supply
> does. In such markets, hardware is designed so that software (viruses,
> bugs, and mistakes) cannot damage hardware.
>

So basically, you are saying that it depends on the system, consumer
systems are too difficult, and for more specialized things (like the
robot) it
would pretty much be a one-shot virus that wouldn't do great heaps of
damage, and thus would not be effective as a weapon except for very
specific circumstances (for example if your enemy was planning to
deploy the robot on you.). Not as a weapon of mass destruction, though,
which would have to be able to attack a great many different systems.

> mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> > So then, basically, it would be very difficult to write a virus that
> > could attack 95% of the firmware out there and thus require
> > 95% of infected systems to be sent back to the factory (which
> > is what I had in mind when I asked the original question -- a
> > virus that would demand factory return.), or have parts
> > replaced, etc., and almost impossible to damage hardware
> > physically with the virus, right?
> >
> > You mentioned about spacecraft not using advanced Pentium
> > processors, only 8086s. But what if they needed more
> > computing power? 8086 is a very slow processor and is only
> > useful for relatively simple things. Even though they might not
> > need it now, what if they do in the future?
> >
> > I also needed to know about the motivation to make the virus
> > thing, where I asked about the military. Could it be possible
> > that the military has a virus that can damage hardware or
> > otherwise mandate physical repair procedures?
> >
> > Also, though, for military computers used for doing complex
> > calculations or other intense activities, including
> > supercomputers, is it possible that the chip companies
> > manufacture "souped-up" chips for THOSE computers?

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Oh, so durable military computers' hardware CANNOT be destroyed by
> software, then? No way no how. It is impossible as in truly, utterly,
> IMPOSSIBLE.

You are asking for absolutes. Humans are not perfect. Some military
hardware is custom designed for other extreme situations so that some
standard features must be forgotten ... as posted earlier about custom
hardware and about robot arms. Stop asking for absolutes. They only
exist in a Rush Limbaugh world or where the executives are MBA school
graduates. Trends exists. You are demanding an executive summary
when many previous posts are the shortest answer possible.

Where software can damage hardware, in retail computer products, then
that is a major design failure. Remove any one word or take anything
out of context and the entire sentence is invalid. Your above
'executive summary' demonstrates how people get killed by management
who do not come from where the work gets done - and therefore needs
answers that ignore a long and necessary list of technical details.
They have little grasp of 'context' but somehow know they are
experts.

That 'executive summary' suggests maybe half of what was posted was
completely ignored - as is so common among executives who don't come
from where the work gets done. Learn why disasters (ie Columbia)
happen. The boss did as your above summary now does. That above
sentence therefore contains little of what was posted earlier - but is
exactly what the MBA school boss would do because he does not have dirt
under his fingernails. That above quoted paragraph has little in
common with what was posted.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Oh, so it would cost too much then to have a fast processor built and
> "fully qualified"?

Little really 'costs too much'. You are looking for a single reason
in a world where many different factors must be applied simultaneously
- and put into perspective. Look - why would I use a 800 Mhz Pentium
when a 10 Mhz processor that is already 'fully qualified', that already
has some proven software that does something similar, whose performance
has already been tested in space, etc exists?

Yes we could spend $0.5 million to 'fully qualify' a faster
processor. But why? Implied is that you are inspired by faster
processor - or what Tim was so enthralled by in Home Improvement? You
are doing the same thing he mocks - "more power".

When that 800 Mhz processor function is necessary for space, then
eventually it will be flight qualified. Currently those larger
transistors in the 10 Mhz processor are well understood when exposed to
radiation, et al in space.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> And again you're ignoring where the real cost benefit comes from: Because
> those old processors are so cheap and mass-produced. The 0.5$ on certifying
> a new, faster processor are peanuts in comparison to production costs.

So you have no problem spending $0.5 million to have each part 'fully
qualified' for a couple of satellites? Do you have any idea how many
semiconductors parts are in a satellite? The math says your post is
nothing but complete denial. What is your point?

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

"w_tom" wrote in news:1163780861.563879.31950
@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Oh, so durable military computers' hardware CANNOT be destroyed by
>> software, then? No way no how. It is impossible as in truly, utterly,
>> IMPOSSIBLE.
>
> You are asking for absolutes. Humans are not perfect. Some military
> hardware is custom designed for other extreme situations so that some
> standard features must be forgotten ... as posted earlier about custom
> hardware and about robot arms. Stop asking for absolutes.

w_tom ALWAYS asks for absolutes when you try to counter what he says, so
why can not anyone ask him for absolutes ?

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

mike4ty4@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Consider a hypothetical computer virus that would cause a CPU to
> overheat and burn up. Is this possible? Is it possible, through
> software, to get a CPU to overclock so far and the cooling fans to shut
> off completely, until it bursts? I've heard that modern CPUs can be

Any decent sort of hardware (especially ones with a BIOS overclocking
setting) has a thermal trip. if the cpu gets too hot, it will shut down
the system. Theoretically it would be possible if the system rom is
shadowed, to overwrite specific parts of the shadowed system rom (stored
in ram) with arbitrary code to mess with the fan speeds if dynamic fans
speeds are controlled by that, but it's very far fetched and would
probably only be damaging to one specific model of motherboard. And most
hardware has a hard-wired tripping anyway.

Just my 0.02 in there.

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Ok, I noticed that this was a rather dead thread but in my very short
research into such topics i stumbled across it as must have many other
curious readers. To put a somewhat meaningful and final answer to the
question, YES viruses CAN cause damage to your hardware. Granted, there
have hardly been any seen that can. Writing the code is EXTREMELY
complex and for any hacker to even WANT to do so is crazy and cost them
hundreds of dollars in experimental fees (or they better have one hell
of a warranty on there machine). I know several black hats and have
done a touch of hacking/programming myself to say the least. Granted
most of my endeavors are for knowledge purposes and to test the
boundaries of what coding is possible. But to write the code to
permanently damage a computer (in explanation) is simple.

What the "theoretical" virus must do:
Step 1: Over-clock the CPU from BIOS
Step 2: Disable fans
Step 3: Disable all protection in the BIOS.

Its that simple folks. What will result is your CPU overheating and
causing many of the other wiring/circuitry to melt. A computer is
relatively stupid, it runs with ON/OFF switches (1's and 0's) and if u
turn on the switch that is supposed to be off its broke. The code that
protects your computer from over-heating (simplified of course)
basically reads "If CPU temp > 30 then shutdown PC" thats the basis for
ur CPU overheating protection in the BIOS. If you wish to fry a
computer thats how you would go about it. The reason something like
this isn't created is because:

1) you cannot spread something like this....
2) There is nothing to be gained from it, hacking and virus making has
become a HUGE profit organization and destruction is not profitable
unless u gain access somewhere else and for something else so there is
no point.

If you want more destruction, since i will never be back here odds are
but at least others will learn that it is possible and maybe answer a
few questions, to burn down a house (granted you have to know that there
are flammable substances near by the computer) write a program to
increase the wattage pull from all hardware devices (a BIOS control) and
over-power the power supply and cause it to spark.

And in case you all wanted to know, im going to graduate college with a
degree in computer science and go into the computer security field so
you dont have to worry about things like this coming FROM me but be glad
there are is at least myself, and hopefully others like myself, that can
think like black hats and destructive people and be able to, hopefully,
prevent things like this from happening to the rest of the world out
there. :) with this essay written, i hope i have answered some questions
for anyone else out there researching viruses and there destructive
capability and goodbye :)


------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
View this thread: http://www.wirelessforums.org/showthread.php?t=10115
http://www.wirelessforums.org

Re: Can a computer virus kill the CPU?

Unknown_ghost wrote:

> Ok, I noticed that this was a rather dead thread but in my very short
> research into such topics i stumbled across it as must have many other
> curious readers. To put a somewhat meaningful and final answer to the
> question, YES viruses CAN cause damage to your hardware. Granted, there
> have hardly been any seen that can. Writing the code is EXTREMELY
> complex and for any hacker to even WANT to do so is crazy and cost them
> hundreds of dollars in experimental fees (or they better have one hell
> of a warranty on there machine).


Nonsense. There is a free BIOS flashing utility written in Pascal that has
extensive documentation how BIOS flashing works on a wide variety of
chipset, so there's no need for testing. Even further, unless you overwrite
the boot block (which is possible on some chipsets), you can always do a
recovery flash.

> Step 1: Over-clock the CPU from BIOS

> Step 2: Disable fans

> Step 3: Disable all protection in the BIOS.
>
> Its that simple folks. What will result is your CPU overheating and
> causing many of the other wiring/circuitry to melt.


Since Pentium III and AMD's Athlon any chipset has been able to simply
shutdown the system due to overheat. Pentium IV and K8 are fully able to
trottle themselves down to not overheat at all.
And even on older chipsets an overheat will initially cause random code
execution, which easily leads to a triple fault and therefore to a soft reset.

> The code that protects your computer from over-heating (simplified of
> course) basically reads "If CPU temp > 30 then shutdown PC" thats the
> basis for ur CPU overheating protection in the BIOS.

Aside from the little detail that this is in SM Mode and done by the ACPI
firmware of the chipset, not the BIOS, this is complete nonsense. Overheat
protection is done via Machine Check Exception.

> 2) There is nothing to be gained from it, hacking and virus making has
> become a HUGE profit organization and destruction is not profitable
> unless u gain access somewhere else and for something else so there is
> no point.


Hint: Not everything in life is about profit. Some people harm others just
for fun.