Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Another month, another Intel vulnerability
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
«1

Comments

  • I don't follow these things closely. Why has there been an influx of these vulnerabilities over the recent years? Did the first few exposed ones set off a domino effect?

  • MikeAMikeA Member, Patron Provider

    Doesn't look like anything to me..

    ..anyone want a Ryzen VPS?

    Thanked by 2sgno1 vimalware
  • FranciscoFrancisco Top Host, Host Rep, Veteran

    @CyberneticTitan said:
    I don't follow these things closely. Why has there been an influx of these vulnerabilities over the recent years? Did the first few exposed ones set off a domino effect?

    Sorta.

    People wanted to come up with the latest ridiculous exploit name so they go hunting.

    Francisco

    Thanked by 1ErawanArifNugroho
  • The Intel fanbois must be getting really steamed up these days lol

  • @CyberneticTitan said:
    I don't follow these things closely. Why has there been an influx of these vulnerabilities over the recent years? Did the first few exposed ones set off a domino effect?

    Because more companies are moving on premise servers to the cloud, they now give a shit about security that they could ignore to a degree when they had it in house.

    Because as it gets harder to brute force anything anymore, more attacks on the endpoints to bypass encryption through flaws in hardware are happening.

    Because when researchers discover a new class of attacks, then variations generally follow. In a lot of cases, the same researchers that find a new vulnerability tend to find variations built on their original exploit.

    Things like fuzzy logic testing and machine learning are starting to be utilized more than in the past to find unexpected behavior.

  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

    Thanked by 2PulsedMedia Foul
  • WebProjectWebProject Host Rep, Veteran

    Not surprised at all, the Intel used to advertise that they do produce most secure CPU

  • I kinda feel like AMD is investing big behind the scene to find these Intel vulnerabilities lol

  • PulsedMediaPulsedMedia Member, Patron Provider

    WebGuru said: I kinda feel like AMD is investing big behind the scene to find these Intel vulnerabilities lol

    Brilliant if they were, they could at the same time check their own stuff is in check.

    But i do not think so - It just turns out Intel skipped security to be the fastest. Intel is quite well known for lying over the years regardless.

  • pikepike Veteran

    Intel CPUs can defeat DRM encryption isn't even bad news for me.

  • HostSlickHostSlick Member, Patron Provider

    Okay. Wheres the Ryzen VPS deal @seriesn ?

  • @HostSlick said:
    Okay. Wheres the Ryzen VPS deal @seriesn ?

    Very slick! 😂

    Contract buyout and switcher special is always on going. Don’t got enough free resources to run crazy promo for now :/

  • naingnaing Member

    @pike said:
    Intel CPUs can defeat DRM encryption isn't even bad news for me.

    This. The shitload of "security features" (i.e., glorified DRM systems) embedded in hardware nowadays are not-so-subtle ways to deprive the owner of control and therefore freedom.

    Thanked by 1PulsedMedia
  • I suspect NSA and other agencies knew these vulnerabilities and exploited. Now when they see no use of it, they are being exposed.

    Thanked by 1PulsedMedia
  • @naing said:

    @pike said:
    Intel CPUs can defeat DRM encryption isn't even bad news for me.

    This. The shitload of "security features" (i.e., glorified DRM systems) embedded in hardware nowadays are not-so-subtle ways to deprive the owner of control and therefore freedom.

    There is a large feeling of freedom, but freedom in the plenitude of the word does not exist. From religions enforcing a specific behavior, to online monitoring with psychological profiles and corporations with clickbaiting, it's all about money and influencing of populations. We are like sheep in a flock, or cattle in a herd. Freedom does not exist.

    Thanked by 1PulsedMedia
  • PulsedMediaPulsedMedia Member, Patron Provider

    naing said:

    This. The shitload of "security features" (i.e., glorified DRM systems) embedded in hardware nowadays are not-so-subtle ways to deprive the owner of control and therefore freedom.

    This! And guess where this vulnerability was found in .... and guess does those certain agencies use CPUs with that specific "feature set"? :)

  • naingnaing Member

    @default said:

    From religions enforcing a specific behavior, to online monitoring with psychological profiles and corporations with clickbaiting, it's all about money and influencing of populations.

    I'm not talking about those kinds of freedom. I'd quote FSF:

    The desire to own a computer or device and have full control over it, to know that you are not being spied on or tracked, to run any software you wish without asking permission, and to share with friends without worrying about Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) -- these are the desires of millions of people who care about the future of technology and our society.

    https://ryf.fsf.org/

  • naingnaing Member

    @PulsedMedia said:

    naing said:

    This. The shitload of "security features" (i.e., glorified DRM systems) embedded in hardware nowadays are not-so-subtle ways to deprive the owner of control and therefore freedom.

    This! And guess where this vulnerability was found in .... and guess does those certain agencies use CPUs with that specific "feature set"? :)

    I think the answers are Management Engine and No. But I guess I'm lost what was your point....

  • @naing said:

    @pike said:
    Intel CPUs can defeat DRM encryption isn't even bad news for me.

    This. The shitload of "security features" (i.e., glorified DRM systems) embedded in hardware nowadays are not-so-subtle ways to deprive the owner of control and therefore freedom.

    You've got that backwards. The owner is the content creator. You come from entitlement that you should have access to any and all information, so far as to remove the control the content creator has and should have. It's fucking leeching. The DRM content owners do not wish you to have it unless you agree to purchase it under certain terms. Don't like it? Don't fucking buy or pirate it and you'll never have to worry about DRM capabilities of your owned processor that you want ultimate control over.

  • naingnaing Member

    @TimboJones said:

    @naing said:

    @pike said:
    Intel CPUs can defeat DRM encryption isn't even bad news for me.

    This. The shitload of "security features" (i.e., glorified DRM systems) embedded in hardware nowadays are not-so-subtle ways to deprive the owner of control and therefore freedom.

    You've got that backwards. The owner is the content creator. You come from entitlement that you should have access to any and all information, so far as to remove the control the content creator has and should have. It's fucking leeching. The DRM content owners do not wish you to have it unless you agree to purchase it under certain terms. Don't like it? Don't fucking buy or pirate it and you'll never have to worry about DRM capabilities of your owned processor that you want ultimate control over.

    Content creators should not have any control over my computer. Book publishers (real books, not e-books) have no means to prevent the reader from making millions of copies of the book, is that fucking leeching, too?

    Processor makers should not implement anti-features that restrict the owner from controlling the computer, and I'm not only talking about protecting videos and the entertainment business, it also includes SGX and its "secure cloud computing" scheme.

    I don't fucking buy DRM restricted content (at least those I can't circumvent), but that doesn't mean it's okay to leave the digital handcuffs around the CPU.

    Thanked by 1pluush
  • @naing said:

    @TimboJones said:

    @naing said:

    @pike said:
    Intel CPUs can defeat DRM encryption isn't even bad news for me.

    This. The shitload of "security features" (i.e., glorified DRM systems) embedded in hardware nowadays are not-so-subtle ways to deprive the owner of control and therefore freedom.

    You've got that backwards. The owner is the content creator. You come from entitlement that you should have access to any and all information, so far as to remove the control the content creator has and should have. It's fucking leeching. The DRM content owners do not wish you to have it unless you agree to purchase it under certain terms. Don't like it? Don't fucking buy or pirate it and you'll never have to worry about DRM capabilities of your owned processor that you want ultimate control over.

    Content creators should not have any control over my computer. Book publishers (real books, not e-books) have no means to prevent the reader from making millions of copies of the book, is that fucking leeching, too?

    Wait, have you not heard of copyrights?

    Processor makers should not implement anti-features that restrict the owner from controlling the computer, and I'm not only talking about protecting videos and the entertainment business, it also includes SGX and its "secure cloud computing" scheme.

    In the real world, people want content and people want to sell that content. They don't put DRM for kicks, they do it because it is wanted.

    I don't fucking buy DRM restricted content (at least those I can't circumvent), but that doesn't mean it's okay to leave the digital handcuffs around the CPU.

    Don't buy the CPU, then. No one forced you. You're trying to control what others do without offering a solution.

  • naingnaing Member
    edited March 2020

    @TimboJones said:

    @naing said:

    @TimboJones said:

    @naing said:

    @pike said:
    Intel CPUs can defeat DRM encryption isn't even bad news for me.

    This. The shitload of "security features" (i.e., glorified DRM systems) embedded in hardware nowadays are not-so-subtle ways to deprive the owner of control and therefore freedom.

    You've got that backwards. The owner is the content creator. You come from entitlement that you should have access to any and all information, so far as to remove the control the content creator has and should have. It's fucking leeching. The DRM content owners do not wish you to have it unless you agree to purchase it under certain terms. Don't like it? Don't fucking buy or pirate it and you'll never have to worry about DRM capabilities of your owned processor that you want ultimate control over.

    Content creators should not have any control over my computer. Book publishers (real books, not e-books) have no means to prevent the reader from making millions of copies of the book, is that fucking leeching, too?

    Wait, have you not heard of copyrights?

    Apparently my point here is that there are laws that protect copyrights, and that copyright worked fine without technological restrictions (as in real books), and there is no clear evidence that copyright is better protected with DRM (as the analog loophole is always an easy way out).

    TimboJones said: Don't buy the CPU, then. No one forced you. You're trying to control what others do without offering a solution.

    My solution is legal, not technological. Boycotting is one solution, but "trying to control what others do" is important, too. Because like you said, they "put DRM because it is wanted", because people who "want content" and who "want to sell that content" tried, and managed to "control what others do", not because they all boycotted good old DRM-free CPUs.

    Thanked by 1pluush
  • Plot twist: this was funded by intel?

  • PulsedMediaPulsedMedia Member, Patron Provider

    Very interestingly: "Additional funding was provided by generous gifts from Intel."

    So let's wait until someone else checks this out as well - might be CTS Labs type of debacle.

    Also very unfair you to say "Another day another AMD exploit?" when it's Intel CPUs which are vulnerable as hell and Intel CPUs have what seems weekly new exploits.

  • @naing said:

    @TimboJones said:

    @naing said:

    @TimboJones said:

    @naing said:

    @pike said:
    Intel CPUs can defeat DRM encryption isn't even bad news for me.

    This. The shitload of "security features" (i.e., glorified DRM systems) embedded in hardware nowadays are not-so-subtle ways to deprive the owner of control and therefore freedom.

    You've got that backwards. The owner is the content creator. You come from entitlement that you should have access to any and all information, so far as to remove the control the content creator has and should have. It's fucking leeching. The DRM content owners do not wish you to have it unless you agree to purchase it under certain terms. Don't like it? Don't fucking buy or pirate it and you'll never have to worry about DRM capabilities of your owned processor that you want ultimate control over.

    Content creators should not have any control over my computer. Book publishers (real books, not e-books) have no means to prevent the reader from making millions of copies of the book, is that fucking leeching, too?

    Wait, have you not heard of copyrights?

    Apparently my point here is that there are laws that protect copyrights, and that copyright worked fine without technological restrictions (as in real books), and there is no clear evidence that copyright is better protected with DRM (as the analog loophole is always an easy way out).

    No, that wasn't your point, or else you'd see how a technological solution is needed in this technology age. And you'd have to be seriously dense to say "there is no clear evidence that copyright is better protected with DRM". Billion dollars industries and companies beg to differ.

    TimboJones said: Don't buy the CPU, then. No one forced you. You're trying to control what others do without offering a solution.

    My solution is legal, not technological. Boycotting is one solution, but "trying to control what others do" is important, too. Because like you said, they "put DRM because it is wanted", because people who "want content" and who "want to sell that content" tried, and managed to "control what others do", not because they all boycotted good old DRM-free CPUs.

    No, obtaining content and removing protection without permission is not legal. You come across as a 16 year old kid who has yet to become an adult and live in the real world instead of fantasy. When you get older, you'll realize as a society, we need rules, regulations and protections for health, safety, and just to make things work better. There's "anti-features that restrict the owner from controlling the computer" in every day appliances and devices around you all the time for your benefit. It's a common place thing, get used to having controls on hardware and software you've purchased.

  • @dahartigan said:
    Plot twist: this was funded by intel?

    Heh..

    @PulsedMedia said:

    Very interestingly: "Additional funding was provided by generous gifts from Intel."

    So let's wait until someone else checks this out as well - might be CTS Labs type of debacle.

    I was joking but maybe I was spot on? Intel are getting annihilated lately, not surprising if they are trying to get a few bruises on AMD in the process.

  • naingnaing Member

    @TimboJones said:

    Apparently my point here is that there are laws that protect copyrights, and that copyright worked fine without technological restrictions (as in real books), and there is no clear evidence that copyright is better protected with DRM (as the analog loophole is always an easy way out).

    No, that wasn't your point, or else you'd see how a technological solution is needed in this technology age. And you'd have to be seriously dense to say "there is no clear evidence that copyright is better protected with DRM". Billion dollars industries and companies beg to differ.

    Ok, here's some evidence (1, 2) suggesting DRM does no good to the entertainment industry. Now I am happy to hear some evidence to counter my argument. "Billion dollars" does not really mean anything. Billion dollars have been invested in traditional Chinese medicine doesn't necessarily suggest that the herbal medicine works, at all.

    No, obtaining content and removing protection without permission is not legal. You come across as a 16 year old kid who has yet to become an adult and live in the real world instead of fantasy. When you get older, you'll realize as a society, we need rules, regulations and protections for health, safety, and just to make things work better. There's "anti-features that restrict the owner from controlling the computer" in every day appliances and devices around you all the time for your benefit. It's a common place thing, get used to having controls on hardware and software you've purchased.

    First I'm "seriously dense", and now I'm "a 16 year old kid"? That's ad hominem.

    Thanked by 2pluush PulsedMedia
  • pluushpluush Member
    edited March 2020

    @TimboJones said:

    @naing said:

    @TimboJones said:

    @naing said:

    @TimboJones said:

    @naing said:

    @pike said:
    Intel CPUs can defeat DRM encryption isn't even bad news for me.

    This. The shitload of "security features" (i.e., glorified DRM systems) embedded in hardware nowadays are not-so-subtle ways to deprive the owner of control and therefore freedom.

    You've got that backwards. The owner is the content creator. You come from entitlement that you should have access to any and all information, so far as to remove the control the content creator has and should have. It's fucking leeching. The DRM content owners do not wish you to have it unless you agree to purchase it under certain terms. Don't like it? Don't fucking buy or pirate it and you'll never have to worry about DRM capabilities of your owned processor that you want ultimate control over.

    Content creators should not have any control over my computer. Book publishers (real books, not e-books) have no means to prevent the reader from making millions of copies of the book, is that fucking leeching, too?

    Wait, have you not heard of copyrights?

    Apparently my point here is that there are laws that protect copyrights, and that copyright worked fine without technological restrictions (as in real books), and there is no clear evidence that copyright is better protected with DRM (as the analog loophole is always an easy way out).

    No, that wasn't your point, or else you'd see how a technological solution is needed in this technology age. And you'd have to be seriously dense to say "there is no clear evidence that copyright is better protected with DRM". Billion dollars industries and companies beg to differ.

    TimboJones said: Don't buy the CPU, then. No one forced you. You're trying to control what others do without offering a solution.

    My solution is legal, not technological. Boycotting is one solution, but "trying to control what others do" is important, too. Because like you said, they "put DRM because it is wanted", because people who "want content" and who "want to sell that content" tried, and managed to "control what others do", not because they all boycotted good old DRM-free CPUs.

    No, obtaining content and removing protection without permission is not legal. You come across as a 16 year old kid who has yet to become an adult and live in the real world instead of fantasy. When you get older, you'll realize as a society, we need rules, regulations and protections for health, safety, and just to make things work better. There's "anti-features that restrict the owner from controlling the computer" in every day appliances and devices around you all the time for your benefit. It's a common place thing, get used to having controls on hardware and software you've purchased.

    Your comment sounds like you would also justify Apple’s walled garden smh.

    P.S. I use an iPhone.

    P.P.S. Everyone can have their own opinion. It’s funny you try to force yours on them.

  • @pluush said:

    @TimboJones said:

    @naing said:

    @TimboJones said:

    @naing said:

    @TimboJones said:

    @naing said:

    @pike said:
    Intel CPUs can defeat DRM encryption isn't even bad news for me.

    This. The shitload of "security features" (i.e., glorified DRM systems) embedded in hardware nowadays are not-so-subtle ways to deprive the owner of control and therefore freedom.

    You've got that backwards. The owner is the content creator. You come from entitlement that you should have access to any and all information, so far as to remove the control the content creator has and should have. It's fucking leeching. The DRM content owners do not wish you to have it unless you agree to purchase it under certain terms. Don't like it? Don't fucking buy or pirate it and you'll never have to worry about DRM capabilities of your owned processor that you want ultimate control over.

    Content creators should not have any control over my computer. Book publishers (real books, not e-books) have no means to prevent the reader from making millions of copies of the book, is that fucking leeching, too?

    Wait, have you not heard of copyrights?

    Apparently my point here is that there are laws that protect copyrights, and that copyright worked fine without technological restrictions (as in real books), and there is no clear evidence that copyright is better protected with DRM (as the analog loophole is always an easy way out).

    No, that wasn't your point, or else you'd see how a technological solution is needed in this technology age. And you'd have to be seriously dense to say "there is no clear evidence that copyright is better protected with DRM". Billion dollars industries and companies beg to differ.

    TimboJones said: Don't buy the CPU, then. No one forced you. You're trying to control what others do without offering a solution.

    My solution is legal, not technological. Boycotting is one solution, but "trying to control what others do" is important, too. Because like you said, they "put DRM because it is wanted", because people who "want content" and who "want to sell that content" tried, and managed to "control what others do", not because they all boycotted good old DRM-free CPUs.

    No, obtaining content and removing protection without permission is not legal. You come across as a 16 year old kid who has yet to become an adult and live in the real world instead of fantasy. When you get older, you'll realize as a society, we need rules, regulations and protections for health, safety, and just to make things work better. There's "anti-features that restrict the owner from controlling the computer" in every day appliances and devices around you all the time for your benefit. It's a common place thing, get used to having controls on hardware and software you've purchased.

    Your comment sounds like you would also justify Apple’s walled garden smh.

    I don't use Apple products, I find them restrictive, but I understand why people use them and I understand why an embedded device connected to the Internet and operated by the masses requires a walled garden.

    P.S. I use an iPhone.

    Which has a shitload of DRM by a company long behind DRM measures. What is your point?

    P.P.S. Everyone can have their own opinion. It’s funny you try to force yours on them.

    Forced? I didn't realize anyone was being forced to visit and read LET posts Clockwork Orange style.

Sign In or Register to comment.