4 ms·

> The whole Meltdown/Spectre debacle rendered my previous Intel system insecure and unsecurable so that was the final straw for me — no more Intel CPUs. Is any

> The whole Meltdown/Spectre debacle rendered my previous Intel system insecure and unsecurable so that was the final straw for me — no more Intel CPUs. Is any system honestly 100% “securable”? I would argue that any computer, regardless of cpu manufacturer, is “unsecurable”.

etherael 8y ago
Well no material is unbreakable, either, but some are a whole lot more breakable than others.
wilsonnb 8y ago
A computer with no input mechanism or output mechanism would be secure. Just not very useful. I imagine any computer that approaches maximum security also approaches minimum utility. Presumably the author just thinks that Intel is a little too low on security compared to the other offerings, and not that the other offerings are actually "secure".
- saagarjha 8y ago
  > A computer with no input mechanism or output mechanism would be secure. Information can be extracted from airgapped computers by measuring magnetic fluctuations, so this isn't quite true!
  - wilsonnb 8y ago
    I suppose that would count as an output mechanism then, wouldn't it? Perhaps it is impossible to build a computer without an output mechanism.
    - luminiferous 8y ago
      If you're going to count all possible side channels as output mechanisms, then I'd imagine that it is indeed impossible to build a computer without an output mechanism. Unless you limit your scope to say, Earth, and somehow build a computer outside of Earth's light cone. It is thus causally disconnected from Earth and has no output mechanisms that can be read from anyone on Earth.
    - trumped 8y ago
      every computer need electricity input also
vertexFarm 8y ago
Anything that can be used can be misused, if you wanna get into the philosophy of it. And any information that is intelligible to one party can be made intelligible to another party, pending whether quantum weirdness™ pans out or not. Even if entanglement becomes a consumer-level thing, I bet eavesdropping techniques will eventually be developed, even if they only operate on the conventional side of the quantum computer. But this is more about security engineering philosophy. The Intel management engine relies on a lot of security-by-obscurity, which is not the best way. But I think that Intel chips are passably secure as long as you watch what you're doing.
0xfeba 8y ago
Also, there have been many flaws found for AMD systems as well: https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-ryzenfall-patch-ecosystem/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-ryzenfall-patch-... And I believe there's Spectre v2 and/or Meltdown v2 now as well. You just can't win.
inetsee 8y ago
If I were to try to setup a system with as much security as possible, I'd go with OpenBSD, in a Tempest Room[1], without a direct connection to the Internet. I don't recall the exact procedure, but there is a way to securely get information into and out of such a system, but it involves CDROMs, not USB memory sticks. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_%28codename%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_%28codename%29

etherael 8y ago

Well no material is unbreakable, either, but some are a whole lot more breakable than others.

wilsonnb 8y ago

A computer with no input mechanism or output mechanism would be secure. Just not very useful. I imagine any computer that approaches maximum security also approaches minimum utility. Presumably the author just thinks that Intel is a little too low on security compared to the other offerings, and not that the other offerings are actually "secure".

saagarjha 8y ago
> A computer with no input mechanism or output mechanism would be secure. Information can be extracted from airgapped computers by measuring magnetic fluctuations, so this isn't quite true!
- wilsonnb 8y ago
  I suppose that would count as an output mechanism then, wouldn't it? Perhaps it is impossible to build a computer without an output mechanism.
  - luminiferous 8y ago
    If you're going to count all possible side channels as output mechanisms, then I'd imagine that it is indeed impossible to build a computer without an output mechanism. Unless you limit your scope to say, Earth, and somehow build a computer outside of Earth's light cone. It is thus causally disconnected from Earth and has no output mechanisms that can be read from anyone on Earth.
  - trumped 8y ago
    every computer need electricity input also

vertexFarm 8y ago

Anything that can be used can be misused, if you wanna get into the philosophy of it. And any information that is intelligible to one party can be made intelligible to another party, pending whether quantum weirdness™ pans out or not. Even if entanglement becomes a consumer-level thing, I bet eavesdropping techniques will eventually be developed, even if they only operate on the conventional side of the quantum computer. But this is more about security engineering philosophy. The Intel management engine relies on a lot of security-by-obscurity, which is not the best way. But I think that Intel chips are passably secure as long as you watch what you're doing.

0xfeba 8y ago

Also, there have been many flaws found for AMD systems as well: https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-ryzenfall-patch-ecosystem/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/amd-ryzenfall-patch-... And I believe there's Spectre v2 and/or Meltdown v2 now as well. You just can't win.

inetsee 8y ago

If I were to try to setup a system with as much security as possible, I'd go with OpenBSD, in a Tempest Room[1], without a direct connection to the Internet. I don't recall the exact procedure, but there is a way to securely get information into and out of such a system, but it involves CDROMs, not USB memory sticks. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_%28codename%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_%28codename%29