| 1 |
On Saturday, 18 May 2019 02:25:58 BST Frank Steinmetzger wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> At some point in the future, my stationary PC will require a hardware |
| 4 |
> refresh. At that point I will say goodbye to Intel. This is the only |
| 5 |
> language companies understand. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Yes, Intel has been permanently erased as an option for any future computer |
| 8 |
purchases of mine. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
However, in the current oligopoly of hardware suppliers and their market carve |
| 11 |
up, there isn't much/any choice for the retail consumer. The only CPU which |
| 12 |
does not come with ME/PSP hardware backdoors built-in by design, is the |
| 13 |
POWER9, which is an expensive server CPU. No choice for laptops. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Unless big OEMs like Apple start exerting pressure on the CPU manufacturers to |
| 16 |
secure their designs, I can't see them changing their strategy just because an |
| 17 |
infinitesimally small number of users stopped buying their products. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> They’ve been getting ahead by developing |
| 21 |
> features without due diligence and by cutting corners. And this is biting |
| 22 |
> them in their behind now all the way back. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
It's not just a matter of cutting corners and trying to remain competitive by |
| 25 |
being first to market with shoddy products. They have also consciously |
| 26 |
decided to incorporate <aheam!> co-processors (OOB hypervisors) in their |
| 27 |
chips, with no option of physically removing these, or at least fully |
| 28 |
disabling or replacing the proprietary firmware blobs they have been running. |
| 29 |
The concept of 'secure computing' with today's market offerings is increasing |
| 30 |
showing itself to be an oxymoron. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Regards, |
| 34 |
Mick |
Archives