-4
Local charity shop rejects pre-spychip PCs. Then they get destroyed. (lemmy.sdf.org)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/zerowaste@slrpnk.net
locked 71 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/58764195

I was in the non-profit shop of a local charity. They accept donations of used computers then resell them to the public. The profit goes to charity. I asked for their oldest machine. It had an AMD chip from the 16h family. Thus, a spychip.

So their oldest machine was still too new for me. I asked why don’t you have anything older? They said the general public would not accept anything older, and so the shop also does not accept anything older. When machines are rejected, they go to a factory that destroys them and recovers the raw metals.

It’s sad to see that pre-spychip machines are being destroyed and that even 2nd-hand customers are being limited to anti-consumer spychip hardware.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (27 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (26 children)

    the evidence

    The evidence shows it takes a higher level of knowledge and more specialized knowledge to exploit the thing you don't want compared to the thing you do want.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 months ago* (25 children)

    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:

    https://hackaday.com/2021/10/01/flaw-in-amd-platform-security-processor-affects-millions-of-computers/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (24 children)

    Man this is some fearmongering.

    Dude you are more likely to get viruses and exploited running the older hardware.

    I understand that vulnerabilities pop up, but at least the within a decade recent stuff gets patched.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 months ago (23 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (22 children)

    Completely ridiculous. You are fearmongering. Hackaday is fine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 months ago (21 children)

    “Fearmongering” was your response to the hackaday link -- which supports my thesis not yours. Now you say it’s fine despite the contradiction with the narrative you try to peddle. You have some cognitive dissonance to sort out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (20 children)

    The article doesn't actually support your "thesis"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 months ago* (19 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (18 children)

    AMD’s advice is to upgrade to the ADM PSP driver 5.17.0.0 through Windows Update, or to download AMD Chipset Driver 3.08.17.735. Presumably, this solves the issue by properly zeroing out memory during allocation, as well as freeing up memory properly when its no longer needed.

    Overall, a software fix is enough to solve the issue, and its a vulnerability that lacks some of the scare factor of bigger finds like Meltdown and Spectre from years past.

    Sounds like they have their shit together.

    One article about a patched vulnerability isn't special or indicative of anything on a wider scale.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (17 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (16 children)

    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.

    You still seem to think that other people's resources are infinite, but this time criticising a corp that should have a duty of care in this regard. Bravo, you are on the right track. So where is the line drawn? Things that haven't been manufactured since 2005? 2000? Please elucidate what the correct policy should be.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (15 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (14 children)

    The absence of an attack surface is as small as an attack surface gets.

    Yes and the things that these chips process used to be processed on the main CPU, relying on software to prevent malicious access.

    Now the attack surface, which used to be every implementation of every software, is reduced to the implementation of the world separation these chips provide.

    You still aren't talking about the technology, you are spouting "common sense" nonsense like new chips using single digit watts of power are less efficient than old chips using dozens of watts of power.

    Garbage.

    Edit: again, what is the cutoff? Should they still support procs from 1995? 1990?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (13 children)

    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 reduced expanded to the unreachable closed-source implementation that makes consumers dependant on a corporate of the world separation with an imbalance of power these chips provide subject 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (12 children)

    different time periods

    Please point to modern processors or SoC available to consumers that does not have these subprocessors. Selling "new" 13 year old processors is fine, but that won't last forever and technology needs change.

    Again, you are spouting emotional, uninformed garbage. There is no technical definition of attack surface that would classify commingled processing as better than bifurcated processing.

    I honestly believe that you are being paid to post this stuff to sabotage real beneficial collaboration.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (11 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (10 children)

    https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/announcements/services-withdrawal-discontinuance-service-select-power-systems-products-replacements-available

    Power 9 is server hardware, end of life, has been pulled from new sales since 2023 I think, 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.

    After the EOSS effective date, IBM will no longer offer full hardware maintenance service for the following machine types and models. If available, clients will continue to receive limited hardware maintenance service as described in the "Hardware Service Extension" section of your terms with IBM, without lapse in coverage, for the listed machine types and models.

    I'll give you some credit, and let's say you mean ASI or RISC processors in general, but some of those use cortex cores and this review for a risc-5 piece concludes that it's for developers and not consumers in general. https://youtu.be/I4zhkNjhKTA

    That's on me. I should have said "designed for" instead of "available to". I set the bar too low.

    So is your expectation the whole market switches to framework laptops with the 3rd party RISC board? That would be great, I would love if that type of modular hardware was standard.

    Your post here, in zerowaste, wanting only the most niche to the exclusion of everything else. Completely bad faith and confirms my suspicions about you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (9 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (8 children)

    2 comments is a rabbit hole. Wow. I wanted to know what modern options you think actually exist, to make that apples to apples comparison you demanded. And you point to something that's explicitly EOL. Your only example is non-consumer hardware.

    You

    You can’t hide the spychip’s waste by choosing processors of different effeciencies from different time periods.

    Me

    point to modern processors or SoC available to consumers

    I should have said “designed for” instead of “available to”.

    You are fearmongering about these things when there are no real consumer alternatives, and the impact is imagined. You are expecting a charity to not set reasonable cutoffs for interoperability. Completely asinine. Every new comment from you has histrionic allusions. I hope you are burning tokens responding to my comments.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (7 children)

    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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (6 children)

    The charity isn't destroying them, I said YOU should put the work in to maintain them, and your emotionally charged diatribe making accusations and being contrarian completely confirms my indictment of you.

    You suck.

    Put the work in to either advertise the alternatives you like or call these things the same words as the rest of us. Making up "spychip" and staying it over and over is opaque and harmful to the conversations you are a part of.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (4 children)

    concealed

    lol not making up problems is concealing, good one

    Customers

    You mean customer, just you with your tinfoil hat

    Still not committing to what's a reasonable age of hardware for the charity to accept hmmm. Definitely because you don't have a well reasoned alternative, you don't want to put in the work to provide this service yourself, and you aren't interested in talking about real problems.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    You are very sad, I hope you get help.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •