On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 01:23:05 -0400 grarpamp <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/17/16, juan <[email protected]> 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...
