>HARDWARE BACKDOOR
>A
>R
>D
>W
>A
>R
>E
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/anti-theft/anti-theft-general-technology.html
>>52323941
BA BA BA BA
It says there they are "stopping" with with anti-theft by the Jan 2015. Does that mean they won't be inserting that shit into new CPUs or they just don't offer that service to general public?
>>52323941
Why would i activate this anyways? it's useless
>>52323941
i honestly that nowadays 50% of computer shit is backdoored
It's so fucking easy to do when designing software, i imagine it's even easier with hardware
>>52323941
>inb4 AMD master race
AMD master race
So what if it has a backdoor? What can be done with a CPU backdoor? They can turn your PC off..and that it. Big deal. Its not like they can spy on your tranny midget porn fap sessions or connect to your internet or keylog your shit up through your CPU
>>52324014
it would be a scary thought if they removed it. how much would then be standing between us and people like osama binladen?
>>52325332
Are you retarded?
>>52325353
No, he is just working for the NSA as a misinformation spreader.
>>52323941
Guys, we're done for anyway.
Read this:
http://libreboot.org/faq/#intelme
This is why I laugh when autists say to use things like HTTPS or TOR or whatever to be more 'secure'. The NSA has backdoors in probably every single one of your CPUs and/or hard drives, they could easily track you if they wanted.
>>52325515
>(You)
>>52325538
But both of those things cut down the number of people who can monitor your traffic, which is inherently more secure.
this has been in there for years. reason so little thinkpads run libreboot is because the i5/i7/i3 hasn't been reverse engineered yet. to remove intel ME
>>52323941
>terminates in jan 2015
Who cares if compromised RdRand is still there?
>>52325591
Well I don't mind that the gov. knows about all my fetishes, but they are selling my data to google without asking me.
>>52325612
>but they are selling my data to google without asking me.
It's the other way around. Google sells data. They have no reason to waste money on data acquired by someone else
>>52325591
as if they use people to track that shit
big data analytics is a big thing now precisely because of stuff like this. not going to bet against mi5 on the off chance I don't get caught in their AI net
>>52323941
You're all fucking retards. You don't need any intel bullshit tech. x86 allows for backdoors since SMM.
http://wiki.osdev.org/System_Management_Mode
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_Management_Mode
>>52325645
Well how do you prevent this? Obviously there is no protection against it that will cover 100%, but how to you minimize your personal data output (without logging off of the internet).
>>52325647
>implying government agencies are the only people who want your information
More security is never a bad thing.
But if these (SMM + Intel ME) are present in ALL microcontrollers (SMM) then what could be done about it?
Make your own (fast) cpu? Yeah, like that's going to happen!
As EVERYONE has this 'cancer' is it not as bad as using unencrypted data transmission or using facebook or using google?
>I'm confused!
I meant:
Using unencrypted data transmission is worse than hardware backdoors????????
Is it easier for someone to hack a data transmission (pgp) or to install a rootkit in intel me?
>>52325810
Is it even worth the effort to install the rootkit or is it easier to capture packets of transmitted data?
>>52323941
>Hardware backdoor.
>It's just anti-theft.
>Doesn't mention the actual hardware backdoor in Intel CPU's, known as SMM (System Management Mode), AKA ring -2.
http://wiki.osdev.org/System_Management_Mode
Baka desu senpai.
More people need to know about SMM and it's security implications.
>>52325680
Don't use google products.
Block google's services on other sites.
I don't understand this fear. Do you really think the NSA wants to hack into your shit and steal your collection of vacation photos from your Facebook friends/cousins and Japanese porn?
>>52325332
Are you fucking retarded?
They can do literally everything with a CPU backdoor.
Not even virtual memory can stop it, the CPU has access to all physical memory and all devices, there is nothing stopping it from spying on everything that happens on your computer, including storage, network activity, and what's on your screen and every key you type and every mouse movement and the entire memory of the kernel and processes.
It's the ultimate backdoor.
Is it really that dangerous?
If EVERYONE has it, everyone can be hacked?
Cyberwar? NSA <--> Hackers Who would win?
Scenario:
>Atomic power plant in the USA
>using intel processors
>hackers use rootkit
>powerplant explodes
>nuclear fallout
>hacking can be traced to >generic country<
>attack >generic country<
Is it like cold war reloaded?
>>52325856
It's not about whether they want or not, it's the fact that they CAN
But if THEY can, anyone can?
Like this:
> forced backdoors on hadware + software
> not NSA use it but hackers
result: Problems caused by government
>>52325866
It's not the issue of "oh my god gun be hacked" because most of people will never be the target of use of this technology.
It's the moral and ethical issue of this technology BEING there.
Would you buy a new car if the corporation making it outright told you that the car has a built in remote killswitch that will trigger in case of car "malfunctioning" (i'm implying very broad term for a lot of things that could happen) for example a required oil change because the car surpassed the manufacturer's recommended mileage since last oil change?
So you can't drive your own car to work despite the fact it's just 3 kms from your place because manufacturer disabled it?
>>52325961
Well ofcourse, but if this happens
maybe like this:
> Intel (Gov. forces Intel) decides to destroy all computers who are viewing DVDs on Linux (in the us it's illegal) or run Linux because it's considered to be "dangerous"
> Incredible amount of linux computers go down
> riot?
They would'nt do this?
So why would intel (gov.) like to disable the laptop of average joe?
I know it's a problem of moral, but if EVERYONE has it? Everyone is vulnerable.
>>52326034
And that makes it okay?
>>52326001
>They would'nt do this?
With current political situation and current lawmakers no. But how do you know what will be the case in the next decade?
While the technology is still there.
Like i said, it's not the matter of it being used, it's the moral and ethical issue of it's existence.
This is my hardware I bought with my own money and despite this manufacturers reserve the right to control it remotely without my knowledge and consent.
>>52326001
>intelligence analysis software flags you mistakenly
>your computer gets locked
>get it confiscated
>maybe you had some illegal software or encryption library
>get busted anyway because they don't want to look like idiots
>tfw fell for the Jews are trustworthy meme
>>52326052
> political situation
trump? He will shut dow the internet!
>>52326104
that's not what I meant and you know that
>>52326050
No, but it's not like:
> gov. uses strong encryption, people can't spy on gov.
> gov. makes strong encryption for users illegal, can spy on people.
This is more like:
> backdoored everyone, we're all gonna die
>>52326001
>viewing DVDs on Linux (in the us it's illegal)
I'm gonna need more information here.
>>52326188
dmca
www.howtogeek.com/138969/why-watching-dvds-on-linux-is-illegal-in-the-usa/
>>52326188
Now don't be mean only because it's reddit
https://m.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/19j779/correction_watching_dvds_on_linux_is_not_illegal/
>>52323941
http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/09/researchers-can-slip-an-undetectable-trojan-into-intels-ivy-bridge-cpus/
>>52326209
land of the free
>>52326244
thank dog I don't live in a country that forbids the use of libdvdcss2
>>52325961
>car has a built in remote killswitch
err.. uhm.. Any GM car made today with OnStar?
Any country running this hardware is *not sovereign*!
They call it "Home Field Advantage".
1 9 8 4
1
9
8
4
So which CPU's are CONFIRMED to not have fuckery backdoor butt rape FBI/CIA/NSA please rape my ass in a spy fest bullshit?
Just the last ones, so I can build a computer with it on linux with my weird tentacle hentai shit
AMD or Intel is fine, idc
>>52327023
>11984
>>52327157
For Intel, the cutoff date is somewhere around 2005-2006, though there has been success killing ME on some 2008 chips. Sandy Bridge is when the ME PCI device was integrated into the processor block.
SMM has been there since i386. Though over the years they have turned it into a monster.
>>52327395
So which cpu would you suggest I hunt around for
ARM?
>>52327023
Anon please.#muh Python
x = raw_input(">")
print x
for char in x[1:]:
print char
>want to buy i7 975
>$500
>want to buy i7 990x
>$800
Prob have NSA shit anyway
>>52323941
Both Intel and AMD have it.
It is called Intel Management Engine/PSP.
>>52326139
>implying they don't make non-backdoored CPUs for gov't agencies
>>52325789
Open hardware when.
>>52327442
Do your own research you stupid lazy nigger.
>>52323941
>there are people on this board who thought trusting jews was a good idea
>>52327525
>Implying NSA's BFF GCHQ wouldn't enforce / corrupt ARM-chips just like murrican three alphabet-agencies ( and pretty much every similar agency in other countries ) are doing if they have local chip production.
>>52325515
>>ayy
LmAMDo
>>52328391
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_hardware
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
good question anon.
>>52325864
But where is it saving this stuff?
For example if I have an encrypted drive can this cpu break it and does that even if can only be broken on this cpu?
>>52329275
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemote
>>52329349
>But where is it saving this stuff?
What stuff?
>can this cpu break it
Yes, because the CPU has access to your kernel memory, which means it has access to the key, all the backdoor code needs to do is know how to read the kernel memory in order to obtain the key, and with documentation, it's certainly possible.
Since the CPU also has unrestricted access to the network card, it can easily send this stuff over the internet to three letter agencies and your OS wouldn't have a single clue about it, though I guess it would be possible for your router to intercept the packets.
>>52329369
https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/respects-your-freedom
https://shop.libiquity.com/product/taurinus-x200
>>52329468
I meant saving the key. For all this work in what you describe seems a waste when a simple keylogger would be good enough.
>>52329468
What if I have a kind of USB 4G that has an internal network card, and just handles everything by itself?
Can the CPU still work with it?
>>52329468
probably why routers are backdoored too.
>>52329518
Yes, IIRC the SMM has it's own data section, it can saved it there and send it off to the NSA later.
>>52329525
Think of it like this: if your OS can use it, then SMM can use it too.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there could potentially be devices in the system that are hidden from the OS (I.E. not mapped into the address space, or kernel not notified of it's existence, undocumented IO ports or chipset interfaces etc), but since SMM code is vendor specific it is probably able to use these hidden devices, though i don't know of how much use that would be, maybe a dedicated surveillance device to aid the SMM backdoor or something.
>>52327629
Anon please.
change line 3 toprint " ".join(list(x))
>>52323941
A) Intel Antitheft is an anti-theft technology built into the motherboard's trusted platform module. The motherboard gets bricked. The processor did not.
B) Intel stopped marketing, selling, and running the anti-theft service over a year ago. They gave anyone with unused time (i.e. me) a refund and shut down the servers. They also are still broadcasting an anti-poison pill that tells the laptops to disable antitheft because the servers are kill.
>>52329605
And to add, the SMM code and data sections are mapped into memory, however it is impossible to for rings higher than -2 (kernel runs in ring 0) to access these sections, the CPU won't allow it unless you're ring -2.
The BIOS sets up a timer to fire periodically which puts the CPU into ring -2 and transfers control to the SMM code to do it's thing and return.
It is also impossible or very hard to actually detect wether SMM is active on the system.
>>52329605
But it's not something that came with my laptop. It's just a thing I bought. It's based on Wimax, though, and I did need drivers to get it to work.
Since it actually handles everything by itself and is plugged in externally through USB, I'm kinda sceptical SMM can even know about its existence or decide to use it instead of a normal network card, but I'm not sure if it can somehow figure this out.
>>52329639
>antitheft
good goy, did you gobble tha shit?
>>52329724
I am a business traveler who averages about 110 nights a year in hotels and 120 flights, so having the ability to remotely make my laptop worthless (and potentially recover it through tracking that would survive operating system wipes) if stolen was something of value to me.
>>52329666
Your operating system can use it yes? there's nothing stopping the SMM from using it either, afterall they're both running on the same chip and one has higher privileges than the other.
The only thing stopping it is knowing how to use the device, if the SMM doesn't have a driver for whatever your thing is, and you don't have an internal network card, then you're probably safe.
There is one way actually, but i wonder if it would work. if the backdoor knows which operating system is running, it could probably use the kernels syscall interface to communicate with the card, but then the kernel knows about it's spying, so i guess not.
>>52324014
You should try and read the whole articel not just the first sentence
>>52329769
It probably doesn't know about it. I mean, how many drivers can you get into that thing anyway? You have to stop somewhere.
Unless these 4G providers are just considered an exception and their drivers are put in anyway. Still, there can't be that much space for drivers on this chip, so it's a question of whether it's cost-efficient when 90% would use their internal network card anyway.
Also, what about custom-built desktops that had both CPU and the network card picked separately?
>>52323941
We knew this for almost a century anon, what are you talking abou?
http://m.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/10/torvalds_on_rrrand_nsa_gchq/
>>52329842
>It probably doesn't know about it.
No it knows about it, it knows it's there, it's wether it knows how to use it or not is the question.
>how many drivers can you get into that thing anyway?
I don't know the exact or even approximate size but it's probably not that much, it'd probably be hard coded, so it would only work with one type of card.
It probably only works for the card that is shipped with machine, but for machines that don't come with one i guess your safe, same with custom built PC's.
I could be wrong though.
