- 1 Post
- 31 Comments
lol not making up problems is concealing, good one
You clearly have a problem with exposing the spychips. Nothing is “made up” on my part.
Put the work in to either advertise the alternatives you like or call these things the same words as the rest of us.
You mean customer, just you with your tinfoil hat
The shop has many customers. If I were to “put in work” as you bark out orders, I would not even be a “customer”; I would be a /supplier/. Your arguments are so flimsy you can’t even remember them yourself. You’ve also already been told that 1 person working for 1 charity does not address the global trend.
Still not committing to what’s a reasonable age of hardware for the charity to accept hmmm.
Citation needed. First of all, I did not demand that the charity accept anything. I pointed out a problem. One possible solution (of many) would be to accept 15h AMD. If you have not figured out that 15h AMD is among what would be accepted to solve the problem, you are quite lost and confused.
you don’t want to put in the work to provide this service yourself,
Citation needed. On the contrary, I am working the problem. But I’m certainly not keen to follow your incompetent management as an acting self-appointed boss.
you aren’t interested in talking about real problems.
Obviously not with a corporate boot-licker who has no hope of understanding the problem from the standpoint of those who avoid oppressive tech.
The charity isn’t destroying them,
And?
The charity is rejecting them, not destroying them. Then the city supply chain destroys them. The thread title is accurate.
I said YOU should put the work in to maintain them,
Not quite. You said I should work for the charity. That shitty attempt at barking out orders as a self-appointed manager was already defeated. One extra person working for a charity shop while keeping the situation concealed from the fediverse doesn’t solve the global trend of spychip-free machines being destroyed. You’ve been told this already.
Put the work in to either advertise the alternatives you like or call these things the same words as the rest of us.
Oof. Call the pre-spychip machines “obsolete PCs on the wrong side of (your imagined) interoperability cutoff” in the face of customers? Your marketing skills suck. But you do you.
Making up “spychip” and staying it over and over is opaque and harmful to the conversations you are a part of.
Simply calling pre-spychip machines as “pre-spychip machines” is far more effective and does not involve lying about interoperability. But you do you.
Your forgetting storage costs.
I can probably fit 100 old (thick) laptops in my closet. I doubt it’s a noteworthy cost for a shop to store ~6—12 laptops, which is comparable to the size of a single laser printer.
It’s similar with old monitors.
Ditch the CRTs but hold on to the LCDs. They will sell better once the market is saturated with this garbage.
In practice, most can’t. They don’t have the reach to change people’s views on the scale needed.
Hardware not traversing their shop is not in their scope. They can do something on the scale of their shop’s operation. It’s not their job to fix the world on a global scale. I’m fine with that. Doing their part is all anyone can expect.
They would also need to deal with people who didn’t understand what they were buying. Older computers often need a bit of finessing to get the most out of. Sticking windoze 11 on them, and giving them out to OAPs or single mums is asking for very frustrated complaints.
That’s a problem for sure. The charity shops tried -and failed- to sell linux machines. They went back to Windows. But that’s not the end of the story. The charity shops have connections with repair cafes and linux clubs, who are picking up the slack.
If you think it’s viable, make a small business out of it.
I’m not interested in profit. I might do a non-profit action. But it’s certainly a fight so far to just get the gov to reveal where the destruction factory is. Will need a substantial effort to get a position in the supply chain.
You are fearmongering about these things
This is like telling vegans they are fearmongering about harm to the environment and animals. We oppose anti-consumer and oppressive tech, including but not limited to closed-source software. It is not “fear”. It’s driven by values and principles.
There is also an infosec demographic who has the wisdom to avoid vulns and tech that strips the consumer of control. We expect to be seen as “paranoid” and “fearful” by infosec-naive folks like yourself. It’s par for the course.
when there are no real consumer alternatives,
Consumers have choice. Shitty choices. When you advocate for the destruction of pre-spychips, you advocate to eliminate the least shitty choice for freedom-fighting demographics who you frame as “fearful” of corporate boot-licking.
You are expecting a charity to not set reasonable cutoffs for interoperability.
Nonsense on 3 counts:
- The charity can do whatever the fuck it wants. I merely reported that useful hardware is being destroyed. There are multiple solutions and they don’t all require the charity to support the pre-spychips through their own sales channel.
- It’s /not/ reasonable to let the Microsoft’s support deadlines dictate when hardware (which runs FOSS just fine for years to come) gets tossed.
- There is no such thing as an “interoperability cutoff”. Old PCs are interoperable with old components. New PCs are interoperable with new components. Old PCs are interoperable with some new components. New PCs are interoperable with some old components. There are components that bridge old components to new PCs and components that bridge or adapt new components to old PCs. There is no “cutoff”, at least not for those without Microsoft or Apple loyalty. We don’t have the barriers that peddlers of oppressive tech have brainwashed your corp boot-licking ilk to accept.
Completely asinine.
Completely asinine to try to pose as a human being and then advocate for oppressive technology (e.g. closed-source s/w), the interests of Micorosft, chip makers, and their shareholders with contempt for zerowaste and non-corporate options. And then expect the free world FOSS crowd to eat your shit by spinning false-FUD propaganda.
You seem to be eating up your own red herring quite well. Your own request for irrelevant information led you to a bizarre rabbit hole about power 9 chips. Only to lead you to another bogus claim:
will only provide limited maintenance on a paid basis. This is the same pain point you have about the AMD processor, but a decade more recent.
I never said I opposed paid support. The spychip has many shortcomings, only one of which is the dire need for support due to the black box attack surface. The Power 9 is not a spychip. IBM selling support for a non-spychip does not imply that support is needed by all users. Support can be anything from running a compiler to understanding their docs. I don’t have a problem with IBM offering some kind of support for customers that want a bit of pampering and convenience.
it’s for developers and not consumers in general.
This is a red herring within a red herring. The power 9 answered your request for information. What you do with the info is on you. I don’t give a shit what you do with the info, because it’s irrelevant. At least to the extent that you have spoken about it. The only shred of relevency would be that the Power 9 is hardly useful to the same demographic who would use a 2013 pre-spychip, so it fails to counter the thesis that pre-spychips shouldn’t be destroyed. The venn diagram of the two demographics of users would look close to this: OO
So is your expectation the whole market switches to framework laptops with the 3rd party RISC board?
No. Why would it be? I expect the existing shitshow to carry on. Most consumers are incompetent. Hence why the enshitified marketplace is a business success.
Please point to modern processors or SoC available to consumers that does not have these subprocessors.
The IBM power 9 is one, but it’s red herring anyway because you’re still looking to weasel out of acknowledging that the only relevent comparison is the same chip with and without an spychip. Looking to other chips is nothing more than a futile attempt to hide the fact that spychip is not wasting energy. I doubt you will find an audience naive enough to buy your nonsense… but if you find them, sell them a bridge.
technology needs change.
Not this change.
Again, you are spouting emotional, uninformed garbage.
Again, your stance is driven by emotion as you continue to fail to justify your closed-source support-needy garbage.
There is no technical definition of attack surface that would classify commingled processing as better than bifurcated processing.
It doesn’t need to. An attack surface definition that attempts classification would be a broken definition by someone attempting shenanigans to hide their attack surface. Someone hoping to bullshit consumers who don’t want extra vulns and then being at the mercy of the corporate supplier’s will to fix.
I honestly believe that you are being paid to post this stuff to sabotage real beneficial collaboration.
You can test that theory by actually putting forward an effective logical argument that actually justifies your position. You can only blame yourself for failing to articulate a sensible idea.
Yes and the things that these chips process used to be processed on the main CPU, relying on software to prevent malicious access.
Rightfully so.
Correction to your utter pro-corporate drivel:
Now the attack surface, which used to be every implementation of every software, is
reducedexpanded to the unreachable closed-source implementation that makes consumers dependant on a corporateof theworldseparationwith an imbalance of power these chipsprovidesubject consumers to.
You still aren’t talking about the technology
The thread was originally about e-waste of technology. Your thread crap has discarded the e-waste discussion, so of course I am talking about technology. This thread branch is about avoiding undisclosed opaque technology with an attack surface we don’t need.
, you are spouting “common sense” nonsense like new chips using single digit watts of power are less efficient
The spouting of nonsense comes when you neglect to make a meaningful comparison that actually reveals the waste of the spychip. You can’t hide the spychip’s waste by choosing processors of different effeciencies from different time periods.
than old chips using dozens of watts of power.
You missed the link about new machines still using a 2013 pre-spychip because the TDP is 17w. But I guess it hardly matters when you’re trying to make a dishonest comparison anyway to conceal waste.
Edit: again, what is the cutoff? Should they still support procs from 1995? 1990?
If it’s a closed-source spychip, it should be supported for as long as the chip maker exists. And when they go under, they should be forced to disclose the source code. If they don’t like that, they should quit making the spychips. If they are ruined and sink because they failed to support their crippled support-needy garbage, then rightfully so.
If it’s not a spychip, it needs no support from the maker apart from documentation, which should always be available as long as the chip maker exists. And thereafter available on archive.org.
Attack surface is reduced with architecture like this. You really don’t know what you are talking about or what problems are addressed with this stuff.
Bullshit. You really have no clue what you are talking about. The absence of an attack surface is as small as an attack surface gets. When you add something that can be attacked, you are adding an attack surface that was not there before you added it.
You still seem to think that other people’s resources are infinite,
On the contrary, you are the one advocating for resource waste. Omitting the spychip uses far fewer resources both for producing and then customer resources for powering it. Then human resources are wasted for controlling the attacks (because you added an attack surface) and for accidental defects (because you added the unnecessary complexity of closed-source software which ensures there is more code that can go wrong and also simultaneously fewer brains reviewing it).
It’s not just an extra chip. That chip needs a driver. The driver doesn’t write itself. So that takes resources. And that driver creates another point of failure and attack surface. It also requires resources to maintain that driver. And when AMD disregards their “duty of care” because the chip is too old to be profitable thus drops support, the resources of consumers are wasted dealing with the problem (which they should never have had in the first place).
but this time criticising a corp that should have a duty of care in this regard.
You sound like a corporate spokesperson for a chip maker. “Duty of care” entails not subjecting your customer to a needless attack surface. What you fail to grasp is the spychip is for corporate customers, not individuals who do not need a closed-source blob in the core of their CPU. Individuals did not ask for a nanny. We requested a CPU that we control ourselves. Forcing us (individuals) to have a nanny we don’t want is a reckless abandonment of duty.
One article about a patched vulnerability isn’t special or indicative of anything on a wider scale.
Of course. The wide-scale big picture thesis is that it’s foolish to needlessly add an attack surface to the core of your CPU. To those who are infosec aware already accept that automatically because it follows from basic prevailing well-established principles of the infosec discipline. We don’t need to wait for the attack surface to be exploited before realising that the attack surface exists. In laymans terms, we lock our doors even if we have never been intruded on.
The infosec uninformed don’t practice security by default. They favor the most convenient decision (to run the fastest chip) and will not consider security in the absence of a specific exploit. The hackaday article gives that. It does nothing to sway experts who already know it’s rock-stupid to needlessly introduce an attack surface. The hackaday article supports my thesis in the face of those who reject fundamental infosec principles.
Sounds like they have their shit together.
AMD abandons customers of their older products. AMD only reacted as they did because the defect was found in recent hardware. If you equate the similar mentality that also brings designed obolescence to “having their shit together”, you can only speak from the standpoint of a shareholder. When a serious 0-day emerges on a 10+ year old AMD spychip, it’s foolish to assume AMD will have their shit together and patch it. They will have their shit together only in terms of the corporate bottom line, not to the ethical extent of protecting /all/ their customers.
There are plenty examples of AMD not having their shit together, such as refusing to patch Spectre on some of their own products. Introducing the spychip in the first place is not “having their shit together” for the demographic of non-corporate consumers.
Of course it does. It spotlights the PSP infosec shitshow arising out of the AMD spychips. Also shows that a single individual researcher was able to discover it and w/some collaborators demo the exploit (no nation state actor or nation state budgets needed). You have failed to understand my position at a basic level if you can’t see this.
You started with this false claim:
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.
I can’t believe I’m saying this, and I’m aware of the potential for innuendo here, but I am going to have to ask what you mean by “pegging” a PSU.
A 65W PSU can supply at most 65W, but it doesn’t “draw 65 watts regardless”. It will draw less than max power if it is using less.
Yes, indeed. I think we have the same understanding.
Pegging means the appliance is drawing the max amount of current. As a PC becomes more efficient, the PSU does not shrink. It just gives more calculations for the same energy drawn. But if it’s mostly at idle doing basic tasks like web browsing, there isn’t a notable consumption difference. A 65W PSU was typical two decades ago, and also still today.
But is there any financial justification for a charity shop paying to stock it?
There is financial justification if they can actually sell it. And of course not if they cannot sell it. We don’t get a crystal ball. It’s a judgement call to predict whether they can sell it. They have opted to be risk averse. The decision was likely made without awareness of pre-spychip characteristics and without considering whether it can be marketed as such. It would be interesting to know if a shop has actually tried that, which can confirm that pre-spychips don’t sell even when marketed as such.
One of the problems is that the shop cannot handle supporting the public on linux. Independent of hardware performance, they abandoned linux in the store and returned to only selling Windows machines. Their staff turnover was too high to keep training staff on giving linux support.
Plus the energy cost to run it if you do buy it.
Energy cost is the same. A 65w PSU that is pegged will draw 65 watts regardless of what it drives. If the hardware is not being heavily tasked and the platform is lean, then there is only a difference on responsiveness but not on energy. Furthermore, some of these pre-spy chips have a TDP of 17w, which is interesting enough that recent machines are still being produced with them:
https://cputronic.com/index.php/cpu/amd-a4-4355m
A 17w TDP means it’s efficient enough to be fanless, or to not need to spin a fan often. It’s foolish to let laptops with 17w APUs get tossed when the very same CPU is still going into modern laptops precisely because of their efficient /for the money/.
Some of the higher TDP chips from the same family are notoriously inefficient. So sellers and buyers need some awareness. In the worst case, an inefficient chip is not so inefficient in a cold region or cold season. We cannot say from 10,000 feet whether such instances would be inefficiently deployed when speaking independant of the regional climate.
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?
Man this is some fearmongering.
The evidence is in front of you. Hackaday.com is publishing facts. These facts do not make you fearful yet you call them fearmongering.
Dude you are more likely to get viruses and exploited running the older hardware.
Nonsense. Vulns in the older hardware are mostly of the known variety. New hardware is rich in the unknown variety of vulns, which by their nature you don’t know about and cannot control for.
I understand that vulnerabilities pop up, but at least the within a decade recent stuff gets patched.
And new vulns get introduced. Even the patches themselves bring new vulns.
I’m involved in a charity that also ends up with a good amount of computer donations. Unfortunately, we have to be ruthless with what we accept. We have to pay to dispose of ewaste.
Charities paying for the e-waste is not universal. Depends on your local waste management. But nonetheless, when a machine is disposed of /someone/ must pay for it one way or another. It’s cheaper to actually use it.
In practice, laptops with a dual core processor or higher can be put to use or given a new home.
The pre-spychip AMDs have anywhere between 2 and 8 cores just before the last segment of 15h chips were made.
Unless you’re willing to store the computers for them, until a unicorn comes in asking for one, it’s likely a practicality issue.
It’s a marketing problem. Consumers don’t know to demand pre-spychip machines because they are wholly clueless about it. A charity shop can manufacture demand just by being transparent in their sales info.
A better option might be to go to a retro gaming shop/cafe. They are more likely to stock old hardware to play older games natively. It’s mostly consoles, but some also have PCs.
That’s a good idea. Either way, it requires an intervention in the status quo. In my region, the public is blocked from getting access to rejected hardware, which goes straight to the (apparently secret) disposal site.
That comment.
What you linked is not my comment.
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.
The evidence shows it takes a higher level of knowledge and more specialized knowledge to exploit the thing
I see no evidence from you here. Yes, it requires a big brain. But it does not require a nation state as you originally claimed (which is a composition of many well-paid big brains dedicated to the work professionally). Cybercriminals are not limited to nation states. They operate in all scales, some organised, some not. The evidence shows that a bug in a driver for the spychip is all it takes:
Your spychip thing is a made up problem.
It’s on you to debunk the evidence that has been established. You are free to post counter evidence. No one is stopping you.
The distinction is several processor architectures and compatibility.
Luckily we need not upgrade the processor because that is precisely the thing we are keeping back. And we need not upgrade the motherboard in countless different collections of use cases, thanks largely to backwards compatibility.
Go ask them to give your number to the next person they turn away.
I did. One of my local charities already knows what I am looking for. OTOH, they are not diligent. I walked into the shop once and found items they said they would contact me on. This is also not a me problem. It’s a global problem. Your ad hoc idea for just one person will not solve the problem of thousands of pre-spychip machines being needlessly destroyed.
(edit) But I must say it’s a bad idea to for the individual charities to have that task. The public waste management collects the e-waste and distributes to charities what can be used. A DB of what spare parts people need should be implemented at the central point of the collection first and foremost. Getting every charity in the loop would be a good evolution from there but it should start centrally.
Every processor and Soc manufactured since 2012 has some form of security subprocessor, or TPM, or something that you are classifying as a made up term, and which you won’t acknowledge are not black boxes across the board like you seem to be implying.
TPM is a different but similar problem. It’s unclear why you are falsely claiming that I will not acknowledge what they are. Where do you get that from?
(edit) I would be in favor of a charity shop also stocking a few pre-TPM laptops.
You are wrong about the tech and fearmongering, and you seem entitled.
I believe you are wrong about the tech and pushing cavalier disregard for wise infosec principles on the basis that you think the spychip can only be exploited by a nation state doing tailored ops. You lack some basic knowledge about bugs.
If you offered the non -profit your time to curate these parts that would be great,
This is not mutually exclusive to exposing inefficiencies. It’s wholly irrelevant to the thread.
(edit) I am exposing a trend that is likely global. If I were to volunteer in my local shop, I would still be exposing this problem. And you would still be taking the cavalier stance that running a spychip is a wise practice if not specifically targeted by a threat agent.
or if you seemed more interested in learning
I did not mean to block you from proving that only a nation state can exploit the spychip. Feel free to educate me.
I do have a problem with dictating how a charity spends their labor time,
Failing to inform yourself about how a charity operates and to oppose the sharing of that info is utter foolishness. To oppose identifying problems, exposure of them, and making improvements is essentially openly hostile to social advancement.
It’s sloppy and reckless to neglect to do some basic homework before selecting charities to support. If they are being needlessly wasteful, they are inefficient.
specifically in a way that would reduce their ability to provide services.
It’s the contrary. Sales facilitates provision of services. You’re advocating needless waste.
If OP offered their labor to handle this consistently for the charity, I missed that.
Probably what you missed was that a customer was in the shop with money and prepared to spend it, but couldn’t because the shop manager made a poor decision on what to accept from donors.
OP should not be just rolling his own jank setup to do his work. There are groups that could provide him with secure hardware or validate the hardware he can get.
You should stop trying to block the zero waste movement and stop trying to make people dependent on others.
I checked and the h16 processor they mentioned uses an Arm a5 core for trustzone functions. There are tools to audit that.
You mean the 16h, I suppose. Tools to audit that the closed source software does what I want? That’s amusing for sure. I wonder by what magic I’m not permitted to see the code but I can use probably another closed-source blob to verify whether my boot-licking product is doing what /the maker/ intends.
Your comment is useful but just not how you intended. The tools to audit the trustzone functions would at least tell me whether a spychip is present, so I can avoid it.
In the context of using this to punch down at a non-profit I can see some reasons.
The non-profit was not named, so your abusive hyperbole is obvious.
The msg exposes a trend likely occuring at many tech shops by charities who have not figured out how to market pre-spychip machines and likely don’t even have the awareness to know what they are tossing which is being blindly scrapped on the simple basis of age alone.
OP is not a state level target,
As already pointed out, you need not be targeted by feds doing tailored ops:
The non profit is not concerned with OP being targeted by the US government, their goal is to provide serviceable computers to needy people.
This is a false dichotomy. Needy people should have security too. It also misses an important infosec principle: the principle of least privilege. If you don’t need an extra attack surface, it’s unwise to deploy it.
It’s surface level relevant to the zero waste conversation, but only if you don’t value anything but the old outdated PC.
Nonsense. Zero waste of hardware that serves a variety of purposes does not exclude any other zero waste practice.
Older processors like this have such bad processing efficiency that the energy savings alone would pay for a new SBC in a year, presuming heavy use.
How foolish of you to presume heavy use on an arbitrary unknown demographic of users.
Then there are the logistical costs and labor of managing that supply of old equipment.
Perhaps you are in a country where they just toss e-waste into a landfill. In more responsible parts of the world, the logistical costs and labor of properly dispensing the old e-waste is /higher/ than the cost of selling it to a buyer who will use it.
A few generations of architecture mean that peripheral and add-in cards are not available or wouldn’t work.
Blaming designed obsolescence on the older hardware when interoperability matters – amusing, if you only knew that USB 3 is backwards compatible with USB 2 and that gigabit ethernet is backwards compatible with its predecessor. There is also an absurdity with refusing to buy something designed for upgrades on the basis of /something/ being incompatible, when in fact the new hardware is dispensing of older standards. New laptops are soldering in RAM and if the battery is not soldered in it’s not using standard replaceable cells but rather proprietary batteries that amount to designed obsolescence. Copious cheap old upgrades can be trivially acquired when chronic upgraders dispense of their old gear.
The street market is flooded with old RAM at dirt cheap prices. We don’t need factory new RAM to upgrade our gear.
A 2008 thinkpad is what I use today, after 18 years. The shit you are advocating now has little chance of being usable 18 years from now as the designed obsolescence has evolved and enshitification of products have become increasingly insideous.
The dwindling stock of donor equipment
There is no shortage. It’s the thesis in fact. So much donor equipment is coming in that they must be selective.
Apart from failing to grasp the infosec factor, by fixating on security likely as a not-so-ethical consumer yourself you missed the fact that some consumers simply oppose anti-consumer products even if they don’t give a rat’s ass about security. Individual non-corporate consumers are being pushed to buy products that were made for corps and work against their interests generally.
No, you just edited your comment after I replied.
I did not make a meaningful change. And it was before seeing your response. “A chip that spies on you is merely one subset of spychips” has the same meaning as the wordier original. But we need not rely on heresay. Feel free to quote the original if you are sure you were not drunk or hallucinating.
But if you’re going to start attacking me
You’re pushing a straw man. If you feel attacked, suck it up and try to avoid logical fallacy. And in the future, try not to start off with intellectual dishonesty.
If a spychip is not a chip that spies on you
I didn’t say that
then your words are meaningless.
English is obviously not your first language. My words put through whatever translation tool you are using may be meaningless. Find a better translator.
But then you say a spychip is a chip that enables spying,
Yes.
which is literally equivalent to a chip that spies on you.
No it’s not. The chip need not be making direct observations to facilitate observations. Read the links.
Please pick a definition and stick with it.
Please get help from a native English speaker.
OK, I’ll bite. What spychip?
You asked. Then suddenly you claimed to already have the answer. Calling shenanigans.
Spychip implies it’s spying on you,
No it doesn’t. A chip that spies on you is merely one subset of spychips. A spychip can also facilitate snooping or remote control, for example, without performing the snooping directly.
Microprocessors embedded within a microprocessor which either facilitate remote access or impose closed source software.
- https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000097447/technologies.html
- https://web.archive.org/web/20250920141935/https://www.franksworld.com/2025/09/18/the-intel-backdoor-nobody-can-remove-not-even-you/
- https://consumerrights.wiki/w/AMD_Platform_Security_Processor
- https://hackaday.com/2021/10/01/flaw-in-amd-platform-security-processor-affects-millions-of-computers/
I don’t have the same hope for you. My charity work is focused on helping people who willfully seek independence from corporate dependencies. If a willful boot-licking cocksucker like yourself came to our org, full-blown peddling corporate loyalty from a high horse, we would likely be unable to help you become more independent. Or certainly the effort would not be well spent. Sadly, you would have to be written off, given our limited resources.