←back to thread

The Dangers of Microsoft Pluton

(gabrielsieben.tech)
733 points gjsman-1000 | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
metadat ◴[] No.32234045[source]
Ew. Why are all the chip manufacturers going along with this stupid plan? I want to buy a processor and then own it and have it work in my best interests, not consume electricity and generatie heat enforcing draconian 3rd party DRM policies.
replies(12): >>32234130 #>>32234281 #>>32234326 #>>32234400 #>>32234486 #>>32234981 #>>32235753 #>>32235848 #>>32236170 #>>32236808 #>>32237073 #>>32240665 #
Analemma_ ◴[] No.32234486[source]
The conspiratorial answers here are emotionally satisfying, but ultimately wrong. The reason chip makers and OS vendors are adding this is customer demand, by which I mean enterprises. Companies want remote attestation and guaranteed-immutable OS images on their networks, and I honestly can't say I blame them. In a perfect world they could have it and we could somehow firewall it away from the consumer space entirely, but that's not going to happen.
replies(5): >>32234561 #>>32234804 #>>32234879 #>>32237705 #>>32261846 #
1. intelVISA ◴[] No.32234804[source]
I don't really care for the reason, why can't we as consumers opt out if it's consumer oriented then? For me it's not even about the egregious security and privacy implications -- I just simply want the (illusion of) choice w/r/t silicon rootkit 'features' that I'll never use.
replies(1): >>32235295 #
2. sofixa ◴[] No.32235295[source]
You can, it even says in the article that Lenovo and Dell are shipping with the Pluton chips disabled by default. If they can do it, a user can disable it to (for now at least).
replies(2): >>32235606 #>>32236950 #
3. fsflover ◴[] No.32235606[source]
Proprietary software with full system access tells that it's disabled. Do you trust that?
4. intelVISA ◴[] No.32236950[source]
the same Lenovo that put a MITM attack in people's BIOS?