I was in the non-profit shop of a local charity. They accept donations of used computers then resell them to the public. The profit goes to charity. I asked for their oldest machine. It had an AMD chip from the 16h family. Thus, a spychip.
So their oldest machine was still too new for me. I asked why don’t you have anything older? They said the general public would not accept anything older, and so the shop also does not accept anything older. When machines are rejected, they go to a factory that destroys them and recovers the raw metals.
It’s sad to see that pre-spychip machines are being destroyed and that even 2nd-hand customers are being limited to anti-consumer spychip hardware.
Exploiting these things is only necessary in those kinds of ops,
Nonsense. Any botnet would benefit from exploiting it. The threat is not limited to targeted attack.
Your machine would already be tipped over,
Nonsense. Intel admits that the IME enables remote access.
But ok you want a computer that has well documented vulnerabilities
Of course.
that will not be patched
First of all, bullshit to not being patched. 15h chips are still supported in the free world. See 15h.org. Patching is also not the only remedy. There are many different ways to control for a vuln and sometimes a vuln requires no control at all, depending on the use case and threat model.
Nothing in my response to that post expresses or even implies an acceptance of TPMs.
Are you just a chatbot that’s prompted to be contrarian or something???
Your inability to simply directly quote what you are claiming is more characteristic of a chatbot. Why can’t you quote my words that lead you to believe I have endorsed TPMs?
which you won’t acknowledge are not black boxes across the board like you seem to be implying.
The claim is false for two different reasons:
I did not refuse to acknowledge that they are not black boxes.
Some are black boxes, and some are not. It depends on the maker.
Then despite your failure to directly quote what you think supports your claim, you contradict yourself by claiming a TPM /would/ satisfy my definition that covers closed-source code while simultaneously asserting that TPMs are not black boxes. You need to sort out your brain malfunction and get some consistency.
It’s bizarre that you make this meaningless yet contradictory speculation in the first place, then attack the speculation because I made no claim about TPMs that you could attack.
The TPM is hardware constitutes a spychip as far as I’m concerned to the extent that it’s closed-source. But some are not.
Oof… you had to snip out the critical qualifier “to the extent that it’s closed-source”. You’re profoundly despirate in trying to come up with a distraction from your shit show.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !zerowaste@slrpnk.net
Discussing ways to reduce waste and build community!
Celebrate thrift as a virtue, talk about creative ways to make do, or show off how you reused something!
What you linked is not my comment.
Nonsense. Any botnet would benefit from exploiting it. The threat is not limited to targeted attack.
Nonsense. Intel admits that the IME enables remote access.
Of course.
First of all, bullshit to not being patched. 15h chips are still supported in the free world. See 15h.org. Patching is also not the only remedy. There are many different ways to control for a vuln and sometimes a vuln requires no control at all, depending on the use case and threat model.
Yes I know… It’s how you responded to that
Are you just a chatbot that’s prompted to be contrarian or something???
Nothing in my response to that post expresses or even implies an acceptance of TPMs.
Your inability to simply directly quote what you are claiming is more characteristic of a chatbot. Why can’t you quote my words that lead you to believe I have endorsed TPMs?
It’s pretty clear I made the assumption TPMS would fall under your “spychip” categorization
You started with this false claim:
The claim is false for two different reasons:
Then despite your failure to directly quote what you think supports your claim, you contradict yourself by claiming a TPM /would/ satisfy my definition that covers closed-source code while simultaneously asserting that TPMs are not black boxes. You need to sort out your brain malfunction and get some consistency.
It’s bizarre that you make this meaningless yet contradictory speculation in the first place, then attack the speculation because I made no claim about TPMs that you could attack.
The TPM is hardware constitutes a spychip as far as I’m concerned to the extent that it’s closed-source. But some are not.
You
Also you
You are running out of tokens or something
Oof… you had to snip out the critical qualifier “to the extent that it’s closed-source”. You’re profoundly despirate in trying to come up with a distraction from your shit show.
You are writing garbage