On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 01:23:05 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/17/16, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Any-way, what's the point of bothering running any sort of 'secure' software on wholly compromised hardware...?
There isn't. But blatant risk taking is apparently fun for humans to engage in ;)
Yeah... Well, I imagine that 'upstanding citizens' assume they will never be attacked by the Intel/AMD/US governmentcorporation. So, from the point of view of 'upstanding citizens' everything is fine and dandy. I know, in theory it may be possible for evil terrists to use the same backdoors or 'management engine' that the US govtcorp uses, but I think that's unlikely. Contrary to libertarian wishes, the gov't isn't that stupid or inept.
I naively admit I wasn't aware of the fact that americunts (intel/amd) had sunk that low, but then again that's rather stupid on my part.
Don't worry, many people don't know Intel's NIC's are involved in it too, all documented on Intel's site. Which means like any good manufacturer, they left themselves (and whoever their buddies or daddies are) nice little magic packet backdoors to the otherwise "secure" AMT, before even getting packet to the CPU gates and userland.
Ah yes, the ethernet subsystems also have a fully compromissed embedded procesor(s)?
Question remains, addressed to people interested in 'security' :
Nobody seems to be trying to fix 'our' fundamental problem...?
I certainly not first to suggest starting open version of cpu and fab, but people cry 'impossible', and 'cost v benefit', 'time', bawl waah.
Yes, and I'm wondering why. Creating a replacement for intel processors at 'competitive' prices might be a bit hard, but...hm...OK...there's this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenRISC
Musk said fuck all that anti BS and is going to Mars.
All the talk about snowden, tor, 'hacking' and similar propaganda is...well...propaganda.
There are facts in there.
But what is the fundamental problem? Surveillance? Secrets? Structures?
The human genome?
Yeah, maybe the human genome. But joking aside, if one wants a 'secure' system of sorts while said 'secure' system can be trivially remote controlled by an 'attacker', one seems to have a fundamental problem, in my opinion...