Remote ‘kill switch’ added to Intel’s newest processor

Initiate
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:33 pm

PostWed Dec 15, 2010 1:18 am » by Spreadthetruth


Lauded as a security feature, Intel’s new Sandy Bridge processor can be remotely disabled by a hardware/software combination known at Anti-Theft 3.0. Systems can be disabled over 3G networks, even while the OS is not running. Even when the hard drive is replaced, the critical systems will still be terminated.

At first this sounds great: if an owner loses a laptop it can be remotely disabled to ensure no sensitive data is compromised. But essentially we are giving up control of our computers and putting that control in another’s hands.

With the Patriot Act in place and and legislation like the........

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/309/832/ ... essor.html

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 6298
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 4:06 pm
Location: coast

PostWed Dec 15, 2010 1:32 am » by Mediasorcerer


so who can kill it,the owner,or someone else?
with the power of soul,anything is possible
with the power of you,anything that you wanna do

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 716
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:16 am

PostWed Dec 15, 2010 1:48 am » by Stratafire


NAhh.. I'm not worried about the CPU design..

These engineers are way too confident in their abilities (what else is new right?) .. The designers depend on computers to build computer too much, they had to design an "emulator" for the hardware design to make sure the design concept works with the "software" portion of the concept..

Problem with doing this, is that you "arranged" the hardware design based upon the emulator, which means it's more then likely a ROM chip, so a simple ROM reader to back engineer the code (bit by bit), reassemble it into a "clone" emulator, and you have a duplicated means to screw with someone..

And (BTW) a down and dirty means to get around this, is to "flag" the registry (up or down depending on it's current state) using the one language that all (and I do mean all x86 architecture based cpu's) which is "Hexadecimal"..

Just move the pointer to the stack in memory within the CPU logic controller to "bypass" this feature (doing this in the outsourced memory is speculative, since it's stacking is more random and volatile)..

Not worried about it, more concerned with the "failing" in the mentality of the current engineers we seem to be cranking out nowadays)



  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook