It's funny how every big tech decision these last few years all sound like a shitty James Bond villain step in a shitty world domination plan, with shitty corpo writing.
post
there doesn't seem to be anything here
42 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
YSK: This feature was disabled with a pushed firmware update.
Its true it was "not supported", but the CPU was/is capable of it.
The big issue here is did AMD disable it accidentally, or did they do it intentionally. If it was intentional why did they not announce it anywhere in the update notes, or anywhere else?
The headline is a little misleading: the feature has disappeared from consumer chips but AMD is not responding when asked why. As the article itself says: it's not clear if this is a deliberate decision, or a bug that has caused this issue.
The headline implies it was a deliberate action. Maybe it was, but at the moment we don't really know. But it is good that Toms Hardware is writing about this and drawing attention to this issue. It's concerning regardless of the reason, and it's also concerning how cagey AMD is being about addressing this issue.
replies:
If it's deliberate and not put back, there's also the possibility the government made them remove it and not disclose why. So they can continue to access certain info and back doors and this security was giving them issues.
The government forced email providers to have a backdoor for them. It's the NSA's PRISM program. Been around since at least 2008.
The article isnt very clear on this, but did they actually remove a critical feature from already sold products? Surely they can be sued for that?
replies:
Hold up, since when did consumer Ryzen CPUs have memory encryption support? I was sure that was always a EPYC exclusive feature.
replies:
Create the problem, sell the solution situation?
Or just enshitifcation?
replies:
[deleted]
replies:
I wonder if this is to reduce their value of being used as server CPUs.
How's that attempt to get back onto consumers' good side again going for you, AMD?
It feels weird this was even ever a standard consumer feature. I wouldn't even really expect it on enterprise hardware outside of servers. This feels like stuff you only really need to think about if you're being directly targeted by a group with resources.
replies:
Is this different than the ddr5's memory encryption?
replies:
What the fuck AMD?
replies:
14 comments in c/technology@lemmy.ml view that post
Maybe Intel isn't the only company burning from within...
replies:
I didn't know memory was ever encrypted. I mean why would it be?
replies:
load more comments
(-1 replies)
Who would want memory encryption for the hoi polloi to be quietly removed and what colour hat would you think they might wear.
Riot in the streets. (/S)
replies:
9 comments in c/privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com view that post
"AMD engineer" in this case is actually "senior principal software engineer", which translates to "management". Who was likely told by the VP over his department to STFU based on what the VP was likely told by their legal dept.
Context is important.
AMD has been winning big in the enthusiast space since Ryzen started taking off. Recently, they've made a lot of opaque and anti-consumer moves. I guess they've decided to start burning some of that good-will they've been building... Meanwhile, intel seems to be warming up? As the pendulum swings, I suppose.
replies:
Am i correct in my understanding that if I've got a Ryzen CPU running Linux, and assuming I've not gotten hit by this beforehand, I'm safe so long as I don't pull newer microcode packages from the repos?
replies:
no comments (yet)