Closed CPU's and Fabs Untrustworthy

juan juan.g71 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 16 23:17:18 PDT 2016


On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 01:23:05 -0400
grarpamp <grarpamp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 6/17/16, juan <juan.g71 at 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...










More information about the cypherpunks mailing list