-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
[–] 1 point 2 months ago (8 children)

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/75183544/28016093

will not acknowledge what they are. Where do you get that from?

That comment.

spychip can only be exploited by a nation state doing tailored ops.

Exploiting these things is only necessary in those kinds of ops, to bypass regular auditing or something like that. Your machine would already be tipped over, top would have admin access by the time someone was hiding a payload in there.

But ok you want a computer that has well documented vulnerabilities that will not be patched https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/amd-wont-patch-all-chips-affected-by-severe-data-theft-vulnerability-ryzen-1000-2000-and-3000-will-not-get-patched-among-others

Edit 8/12/2024 4:45am PT: The researchers who discovered the flaw in AMD's chips contend that the vulnerability impacts all AMD chips extending back to 2006.

Good luck tilting at windmills.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (7 children)

    That comment.

    What you linked is not my comment.

    Exploiting these things is only necessary in those kinds of ops,

    Nonsense. Any botnet would benefit from exploiting it. The threat is not limited to targeted attack.

    Your machine would already be tipped over,

    Nonsense. Intel admits that the IME enables remote access.

    But ok you want a computer that has well documented vulnerabilities

    Of course.

    that will not be patched

    First of all, bullshit to not being patched. 15h chips are still supported in the free world. See 15h.org. Patching is also not the only remedy. There are many different ways to control for a vuln and sometimes a vuln requires no control at all, depending on the use case and threat model.

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

    not my comment.

    Yes I know... It's how you responded to that

    Are you just a chatbot that's prompted to be contrarian or something???

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 months ago* (5 children)

    Nothing in my response to that post expresses or even implies an acceptance of TPMs.

    Are you just a chatbot that’s prompted to be contrarian or something???

    Your inability to simply directly quote what you are claiming is more characteristic of a chatbot. Why can’t you quote my words that lead you to believe I have endorsed TPMs?

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

    It's pretty clear I made the assumption TPMS would fall under your "spychip" categorization

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 months ago* (3 children)

    You started with this false claim:

    which you won’t acknowledge are not black boxes across the board like you seem to be implying.

    The claim is false for two different reasons:

    1. I did not refuse to acknowledge that they are not black boxes.
    2. Some are black boxes, and some are not. It depends on the maker.

    Then despite your failure to directly quote what you think supports your claim, you contradict yourself by claiming a TPM /would/ satisfy my definition that covers closed-source code while simultaneously asserting that TPMs are not black boxes. You need to sort out your brain malfunction and get some consistency.

    It’s bizarre that you make this meaningless yet contradictory speculation in the first place, then attack the speculation because I made no claim about TPMs that you could attack.

    The TPM is hardware constitutes a spychip as far as I’m concerned to the extent that it’s closed-source. But some are not.

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

    You

    TPM is a different but similar problem.

    Also you

    The TPM is hardware constitutes a spychip as far as I’m concerned

    You are running out of tokens or something

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •