3 ms·

Meanwhile there's a high likelihood that there's a backdoor in the Intel processors (and maybe now also AMD ones ?) that was put there by the NSA... and hardy a

Meanwhile there's a high likelihood that there's a backdoor in the Intel processors (and maybe now also AMD ones ?) that was put there by the NSA... and hardy anyone seems to care ? https://blog.invisiblethings.org/2015/10/27/x86_harmful.html https://blog.invisiblethings.org/2015/10/27/x86_harmful.html

themitigating 5y ago
This seems to be talking about bugs that could be exploited. If there was evidence for a backdoor then it would be global news. You might believe there's a backdoor but unless you can prove it what do you want people to do?
- generalizations 5y ago
  > bugs that could be exploited That's how you hide a backdoor in open source software.
smoldesu 5y ago
Those MINIX cores have been a subject of scrutiny for many years, just not by the people who you'd encounter in your day-to-day. There are definitely people who care, but they've basically started waving the white flag at this point. Pretty much every modern CPU (as well as the software running on it) has some degree of government oversight/intervention, trying to circumvent it is a hobbyist effort, and an often unsuccessful one at that.
charcircuit 5y ago
Intel's processor's ME does not have a backdoor and the chance there is a remotely exploitable vulnerability is minimal. Hardly anyone cares because it is mostly schizo people who fall for these conspiracy theories.
- ttybird2 5y ago
  "Intel's processor's ME does not have a backdoor" Can you prove it? It would at least raise confidence if * It was open source. * It could be disabled. * NSA hadn't requested from intel for their own undocumented way to disable ME. "the chance there is a remotely exploitable vulnerability is minimal" https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000025619/software.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000... "Hardly anyone cares because it is mostly schizo people who fall for these conspiracy theories."* I can't appreciate the slur against people with schizophrenia. In addition to that, it feels like you would say the same about NSA spying before the Snowden revelations. Although I do wonder, if there was a backdoor in intel processors for the law enforcement to access, would you support it?
  - charcircuit 5y ago
    >Can you prove it? I can't prove it. But Intel has gone on record stating there is no backdoor. People who have reverse engineered it have not stated there is a backdoor. >* It was open source. You could say the name thing about Windows. People and business have reasons why they want to restrict access to the source come. >* It could be disabled. The ME is required for your computer to properly boot. If it was disabled, then your computer wouldn't work. >* NSA hadn't requested from intel for their own undocumented way to disable ME. The government can be overly paranoid. Just look at the procedures they have had for disposing harddrives when simply zeroing the drive was enough. >linked vulnerability That vulnerability required someone to have physical access to your machine no they could attach a flasher to it. Once an attacker has physical access to your machine most people would consider this game over. That vulnerability was not remotely executable. >In addition to that, it feels like you would say the same about NSA spying before the Snowden revelations. I don't know enough about the Snowden revelations to answer this. >if there was a backdoor in intel processors for the law enforcement to access, would you support it? If access could be implemented in a secure way and it required a warrant then yes I would support it. It would be a better alternative than someone breaking down your door to physically take your computer leaving you without one for months or never being able to retrieve it.
    - ttybird2 5y ago

themitigating 5y ago

This seems to be talking about bugs that could be exploited. If there was evidence for a backdoor then it would be global news. You might believe there's a backdoor but unless you can prove it what do you want people to do?

generalizations 5y ago
> bugs that could be exploited That's how you hide a backdoor in open source software.

smoldesu 5y ago

Those MINIX cores have been a subject of scrutiny for many years, just not by the people who you'd encounter in your day-to-day. There are definitely people who care, but they've basically started waving the white flag at this point. Pretty much every modern CPU (as well as the software running on it) has some degree of government oversight/intervention, trying to circumvent it is a hobbyist effort, and an often unsuccessful one at that.

charcircuit 5y ago

Intel's processor's ME does not have a backdoor and the chance there is a remotely exploitable vulnerability is minimal. Hardly anyone cares because it is mostly schizo people who fall for these conspiracy theories.

ttybird2 5y ago
"Intel's processor's ME does not have a backdoor" Can you prove it? It would at least raise confidence if * It was open source. * It could be disabled. * NSA hadn't requested from intel for their own undocumented way to disable ME. "the chance there is a remotely exploitable vulnerability is minimal" https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000025619/software.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000... "Hardly anyone cares because it is mostly schizo people who fall for these conspiracy theories."* I can't appreciate the slur against people with schizophrenia. In addition to that, it feels like you would say the same about NSA spying before the Snowden revelations. Although I do wonder, if there was a backdoor in intel processors for the law enforcement to access, would you support it?
- charcircuit 5y ago
  >Can you prove it? I can't prove it. But Intel has gone on record stating there is no backdoor. People who have reverse engineered it have not stated there is a backdoor. >* It was open source. You could say the name thing about Windows. People and business have reasons why they want to restrict access to the source come. >* It could be disabled. The ME is required for your computer to properly boot. If it was disabled, then your computer wouldn't work. >* NSA hadn't requested from intel for their own undocumented way to disable ME. The government can be overly paranoid. Just look at the procedures they have had for disposing harddrives when simply zeroing the drive was enough. >linked vulnerability That vulnerability required someone to have physical access to your machine no they could attach a flasher to it. Once an attacker has physical access to your machine most people would consider this game over. That vulnerability was not remotely executable. >In addition to that, it feels like you would say the same about NSA spying before the Snowden revelations. I don't know enough about the Snowden revelations to answer this. >if there was a backdoor in intel processors for the law enforcement to access, would you support it? If access could be implemented in a secure way and it required a warrant then yes I would support it. It would be a better alternative than someone breaking down your door to physically take your computer leaving you without one for months or never being able to retrieve it.
  - ttybird2 5y ago