5 ms·

Dear any disenchanted Intel or AMD employees or executives reading, I will buy a new CPU when you offer one without Intel (CS)ME / AMD Secure Technology (forme

Dear any disenchanted Intel or AMD employees or executives reading, I will buy a new CPU when you offer one without Intel (CS)ME / AMD Secure Technology (formerly PSP). Until then, I will never buy a new x86 processor ever again. Sincerely, - A larger chunk of your potential customers than you think

alexklarjr 4y ago
I think their processors are not including management engine, so you are safe to buy one. The management engine that included in chipsets can be switched off permanently. In general usage, it does not matter while you use third party controlled CAs, distro repositories and automatic updates, not speaking about microsoft, google, nvidia, valve, mozilla spyware that can do anything with your data anytime they (or US/EU government agencies) want.
- anonym29 4y ago
  >I think their processors are not including management engine, so you are safe to buy one. There are no new AMD or Intel processors that come without ST (formerly PSP) or CSME (formerly ME). >The management engine that included in chipsets can be switched off permanently. This is factually incorrect. me_cleaner cannot neutralize or disable modern CSME, there is no way to verify the HAP bit does anything at all, nor that the included TCP/IP stack on the Minix OS cannot accept remote commands to disable the HAP bit, if set. To our current knowledge, only the onboard GbE controller is accessible to CSME's TCP/IP stack, but we're working with extremely limited information. These are closed-source, hardened opaque-boxes that are deliberately designed to be inauditable and tamper-proof. Adding firmware support for other ethernet controllers or wireless cards would conceivably be trivial. >In general usage, it does not matter while you use third party controlled CAs, distro repositories and automatic updates, I compile from source. OS, drivers, browser - all of it. I don't care if you think this is "unrealistic for the average user", my objective is not to have the security model that the average user has. >not speaking about microsoft, google, nvidia, valve, mozilla spyware that can do anything with your data anytime they (or US/EU government agencies) want. I do not run Windows, I do not use chromium (or firefox) based browsers, I do not use a discrete GPU, I don't have anything remotely gaming related (like steam) installed. What I do have is a constitutional right to privacy that does not end where my CPU begins, and an unshakeable resolve wherein I refuse to voluntarily cede that right to privacy just because so many others do.
  - sweetjuly 4y ago
    What hardware setup do you use that you feel secure on? In my own searching I haven't found any off the shelf SoCs that have meaningfully more secure architectures. You either have IME or a garbage ARM based SoC that doesn't have an SMMU and forces you to fully trust your wifi card not to scribble over kernel memory. Most vendors really just don't care about system security. Maybe you should look into running your computer off an Ultrascale FPGA :)
    - anonym29 4y ago
      Currently, my main workstation uses a Power 9 processor made by IBM, which is definitely much more expensive and much slower than modern Intel & AMD processors, but comes with the privilege of having a completely open ISA, open hardware schematics, and 100% open source firmware & microcode for the CPU itself. I am not a big fan of ARM as many ARM chips have a TrustZone core, which is in the same camp as (CS)ME and AMD ST (PSP). Fun fact: AMD ST (PSP) is actually implemented using an ARM TrustZone core.
  - CamperBob2 4y ago
    What I do have is a constitutional right to privacy that does not end where my CPU begins, and an unshakeable resolve wherein I refuse to voluntarily cede that right to privacy just because so many others do. Anger might help, if channeled properly into lobbying your representatives in Congress. Making up imaginary constitutional rights to a DRM-free PC won't help at all, though. Intel and AMD have the right to shove their spyware into their silicon, just as Microsoft has the right to shove theirs into their OS. You have the right to decline to buy it. Your rights end there, given that nothing they are doing is actually illegal. That last part could change, which is why I recommend lobbying. It should be completely illegal to use a Wintel PC for a vast number of things that people are currently using them for, from healthcare to government services to military applications. If we can convince Congress of the threat, they can pass legislation that will wreck the business model of anyone who doesn't give the user -- or at least the admin -- control over what information the PC sends out and what it can receive. They will change their tune in a hurry when that happens.
Gigachad 4y ago
>A larger chunk of your potential customers than you think Reality is probably 2000 people max. Wouldn't even be worth having a meeting to discuss a new product line.
- anonym29 4y ago
  Lowball speculation lacking any semblance of supporting data aside, remember that this doesn't require a new product line, or any new features, just removing an existing component that costs more to add in, replacing owner-controlled CPU core initialization with the code that performed that prior to the introduction of ME. Not to mention that both team blue and team red could charge something of a fortune of a "privacy premium" for not including these much-despised coprocessors. Consider one of the only remotely comparable semi-modern options - IBM's Power 9 processors. Midrange versions of these processors and their motherboards each start in the thousands of dollars. For a Ryzen 9 7950x with no AMT ST (PSP) or Microsoft Pluton, I'd eagerly jump at the opportunity to purchase one for $2500. Back to your estimate - even for consumer demand, your estimate is easily dismissed by simply looking at the existence of companies like RaptorCS, Purism, and the like. In addition, there is enterprise purchasing demand in the hundreds of millions, easily. Google was attempting to remove all proprietary blobs from their servers a few years ago (2017, if memory serves correctly), and ME/PSP was the big barrier they couldn't overcome at the time. Make no mistake, there isn't a single tech company that wouldn't leap on such coprocessor-free compute to protect sensitive corporate secrets.
  - phendrenad2 4y ago
    Firstly, a response with no supporting data is befitting of a post with no supporting data, no? > this doesn't require a new product line, or any new features, just removing an existing component that costs more to add in That seems wrong. Even having a new SKU has some overhead in terms of any manual process (such as making product brochures). Plus, are they going to silently make this hypothetical ME-less CPU, or are they going to try to do some outreach to interested buyers? If not, what's the point? That costs money too. Oh, and they'll need a separate line for packaging these CPUs. And lastly, adding a post-process way to remove ME is potentially a security issue, because maybe people in high-security environments (who likely pay more than people such as yourself who want ME-less) would be worried about an attacker slipping a ME-less CPU in and doing something nefarious. Anyway, TL;DR: it's not enough to prove that there are people interested in a ME-less CPU. Heck, if it's $1, I'll buy one for the hell of it. It's a question of how much more they're willing to pay, and how much more it'll cost Intel to deliver such a CPU. And we have precious little info to go on, so your argument is hardly a slam-dunk. Edit: > there isn't a single tech company that wouldn't leap on such coprocessor-free compute to protect sensitive corporate secrets Really? Corporations are worried about ME? First I've heard of it. These are the same companies that willingly use Azure and AWS, right? Can you provide some evidence?
kerpotgh 4y ago
[dead]
ShredKazoo 4y ago
If not Intel/AMD, who are you buying your processors from?
- anonym29 4y ago
  Right now, I use a Power 9 (PPC64 arch) processor made by IBM for my main workstation. It is 100% open source - every bit of the firmware, and hardware schematics too. I have a few old laptops with Intel and AMD processors that predate the age of ME and PSP, respectively, but they are not powerful enough for running multiple VMs, background services, a few dozen browser tabs, streaming and decoding video over SMB, etc like I do on my workstation.
  - ShredKazoo 4y ago
    Interesting, does being open source actually offer meaningful protection against hardware supply chain attacks though?
    - anonym29 4y ago
      No, but the concern with Intel and AMD security coprocessors isn't a hardware supply chain attack (like what NSA's TAO unit does with hardware interdiction), it's with a component that we can reasonably assume to be untrustworthy that is guaranteed to be present in every CPU as a "feature". We cannot read the source of CSME or AMD ST firmware. We cannot inspect what it is doing. I can read the source of all firmware for all parts of my CPU. I can inspect what it is doing. This is what the benefit really boils down to - it's not a guarantee of security, but it is a guarantee you can actually audit what your silicon is doing.
genocidicbunny 4y ago
> Sincerely, - A larger chunk of your potential customers than you think I wish this were true, but in reality it's pretty far from that. What do you count the tens or hundreds of thousands of potential customers amongst the sea of tens or hundreds or thousands of millions of real customers? A rounding error. A huge chunk of their market _wants_ these features, another huge chunk just doesn't care, and there's a small (and at times very passionately vocal) minority that cares and doesn't want them. But this is all setting up for a response to: > Until then, I will never buy a new x86 processor ever again. Don't hold your breath; It's not likely you'll ever have the opportunity to spend your money on x86 with the given conditions.
- anonym29 4y ago
  I've addressed this argument further down in the comments. TL;DR: Google wants servers with no Intel (CS)ME. If you don't think other big tech corporations feel the same way, or that the collective purchasing power of a few of the world's big tech companies' server budgets is a significant amount of money, I don't know what will convince you. There may only be tens or hundreds of thousands of customers, but tens of those customers are going to want hundreds of thousands of individual units. I have no doubt annual sales for modern X86 silicon without the "security" coprocessors would be in the millions of units for the first few years, at a minimum.

alexklarjr 4y ago

I think their processors are not including management engine, so you are safe to buy one. The management engine that included in chipsets can be switched off permanently. In general usage, it does not matter while you use third party controlled CAs, distro repositories and automatic updates, not speaking about microsoft, google, nvidia, valve, mozilla spyware that can do anything with your data anytime they (or US/EU government agencies) want.

anonym29 4y ago
>I think their processors are not including management engine, so you are safe to buy one. There are no new AMD or Intel processors that come without ST (formerly PSP) or CSME (formerly ME). >The management engine that included in chipsets can be switched off permanently. This is factually incorrect. me_cleaner cannot neutralize or disable modern CSME, there is no way to verify the HAP bit does anything at all, nor that the included TCP/IP stack on the Minix OS cannot accept remote commands to disable the HAP bit, if set. To our current knowledge, only the onboard GbE controller is accessible to CSME's TCP/IP stack, but we're working with extremely limited information. These are closed-source, hardened opaque-boxes that are deliberately designed to be inauditable and tamper-proof. Adding firmware support for other ethernet controllers or wireless cards would conceivably be trivial. >In general usage, it does not matter while you use third party controlled CAs, distro repositories and automatic updates, I compile from source. OS, drivers, browser - all of it. I don't care if you think this is "unrealistic for the average user", my objective is not to have the security model that the average user has. >not speaking about microsoft, google, nvidia, valve, mozilla spyware that can do anything with your data anytime they (or US/EU government agencies) want. I do not run Windows, I do not use chromium (or firefox) based browsers, I do not use a discrete GPU, I don't have anything remotely gaming related (like steam) installed. What I do have is a constitutional right to privacy that does not end where my CPU begins, and an unshakeable resolve wherein I refuse to voluntarily cede that right to privacy just because so many others do.
- sweetjuly 4y ago
  What hardware setup do you use that you feel secure on? In my own searching I haven't found any off the shelf SoCs that have meaningfully more secure architectures. You either have IME or a garbage ARM based SoC that doesn't have an SMMU and forces you to fully trust your wifi card not to scribble over kernel memory. Most vendors really just don't care about system security. Maybe you should look into running your computer off an Ultrascale FPGA :)
  - anonym29 4y ago
    Currently, my main workstation uses a Power 9 processor made by IBM, which is definitely much more expensive and much slower than modern Intel & AMD processors, but comes with the privilege of having a completely open ISA, open hardware schematics, and 100% open source firmware & microcode for the CPU itself. I am not a big fan of ARM as many ARM chips have a TrustZone core, which is in the same camp as (CS)ME and AMD ST (PSP). Fun fact: AMD ST (PSP) is actually implemented using an ARM TrustZone core.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  What I do have is a constitutional right to privacy that does not end where my CPU begins, and an unshakeable resolve wherein I refuse to voluntarily cede that right to privacy just because so many others do. Anger might help, if channeled properly into lobbying your representatives in Congress. Making up imaginary constitutional rights to a DRM-free PC won't help at all, though. Intel and AMD have the right to shove their spyware into their silicon, just as Microsoft has the right to shove theirs into their OS. You have the right to decline to buy it. Your rights end there, given that nothing they are doing is actually illegal. That last part could change, which is why I recommend lobbying. It should be completely illegal to use a Wintel PC for a vast number of things that people are currently using them for, from healthcare to government services to military applications. If we can convince Congress of the threat, they can pass legislation that will wreck the business model of anyone who doesn't give the user -- or at least the admin -- control over what information the PC sends out and what it can receive. They will change their tune in a hurry when that happens.

Gigachad 4y ago

>A larger chunk of your potential customers than you think Reality is probably 2000 people max. Wouldn't even be worth having a meeting to discuss a new product line.

anonym29 4y ago
Lowball speculation lacking any semblance of supporting data aside, remember that this doesn't require a new product line, or any new features, just removing an existing component that costs more to add in, replacing owner-controlled CPU core initialization with the code that performed that prior to the introduction of ME. Not to mention that both team blue and team red could charge something of a fortune of a "privacy premium" for not including these much-despised coprocessors. Consider one of the only remotely comparable semi-modern options - IBM's Power 9 processors. Midrange versions of these processors and their motherboards each start in the thousands of dollars. For a Ryzen 9 7950x with no AMT ST (PSP) or Microsoft Pluton, I'd eagerly jump at the opportunity to purchase one for $2500. Back to your estimate - even for consumer demand, your estimate is easily dismissed by simply looking at the existence of companies like RaptorCS, Purism, and the like. In addition, there is enterprise purchasing demand in the hundreds of millions, easily. Google was attempting to remove all proprietary blobs from their servers a few years ago (2017, if memory serves correctly), and ME/PSP was the big barrier they couldn't overcome at the time. Make no mistake, there isn't a single tech company that wouldn't leap on such coprocessor-free compute to protect sensitive corporate secrets.
- phendrenad2 4y ago
  Firstly, a response with no supporting data is befitting of a post with no supporting data, no? > this doesn't require a new product line, or any new features, just removing an existing component that costs more to add in That seems wrong. Even having a new SKU has some overhead in terms of any manual process (such as making product brochures). Plus, are they going to silently make this hypothetical ME-less CPU, or are they going to try to do some outreach to interested buyers? If not, what's the point? That costs money too. Oh, and they'll need a separate line for packaging these CPUs. And lastly, adding a post-process way to remove ME is potentially a security issue, because maybe people in high-security environments (who likely pay more than people such as yourself who want ME-less) would be worried about an attacker slipping a ME-less CPU in and doing something nefarious. Anyway, TL;DR: it's not enough to prove that there are people interested in a ME-less CPU. Heck, if it's $1, I'll buy one for the hell of it. It's a question of how much more they're willing to pay, and how much more it'll cost Intel to deliver such a CPU. And we have precious little info to go on, so your argument is hardly a slam-dunk. Edit: > there isn't a single tech company that wouldn't leap on such coprocessor-free compute to protect sensitive corporate secrets Really? Corporations are worried about ME? First I've heard of it. These are the same companies that willingly use Azure and AWS, right? Can you provide some evidence?

kerpotgh 4y ago

[dead]

ShredKazoo 4y ago

If not Intel/AMD, who are you buying your processors from?

anonym29 4y ago
Right now, I use a Power 9 (PPC64 arch) processor made by IBM for my main workstation. It is 100% open source - every bit of the firmware, and hardware schematics too. I have a few old laptops with Intel and AMD processors that predate the age of ME and PSP, respectively, but they are not powerful enough for running multiple VMs, background services, a few dozen browser tabs, streaming and decoding video over SMB, etc like I do on my workstation.
- ShredKazoo 4y ago
  Interesting, does being open source actually offer meaningful protection against hardware supply chain attacks though?
  - anonym29 4y ago
    No, but the concern with Intel and AMD security coprocessors isn't a hardware supply chain attack (like what NSA's TAO unit does with hardware interdiction), it's with a component that we can reasonably assume to be untrustworthy that is guaranteed to be present in every CPU as a "feature". We cannot read the source of CSME or AMD ST firmware. We cannot inspect what it is doing. I can read the source of all firmware for all parts of my CPU. I can inspect what it is doing. This is what the benefit really boils down to - it's not a guarantee of security, but it is a guarantee you can actually audit what your silicon is doing.

genocidicbunny 4y ago

> Sincerely, - A larger chunk of your potential customers than you think I wish this were true, but in reality it's pretty far from that. What do you count the tens or hundreds of thousands of potential customers amongst the sea of tens or hundreds or thousands of millions of real customers? A rounding error. A huge chunk of their market _wants_ these features, another huge chunk just doesn't care, and there's a small (and at times very passionately vocal) minority that cares and doesn't want them. But this is all setting up for a response to: > Until then, I will never buy a new x86 processor ever again. Don't hold your breath; It's not likely you'll ever have the opportunity to spend your money on x86 with the given conditions.

anonym29 4y ago
I've addressed this argument further down in the comments. TL;DR: Google wants servers with no Intel (CS)ME. If you don't think other big tech corporations feel the same way, or that the collective purchasing power of a few of the world's big tech companies' server budgets is a significant amount of money, I don't know what will convince you. There may only be tens or hundreds of thousands of customers, but tens of those customers are going to want hundreds of thousands of individual units. I have no doubt annual sales for modern X86 silicon without the "security" coprocessors would be in the millions of units for the first few years, at a minimum.