←back to thread

The Dangers of Microsoft Pluton

(gabrielsieben.tech)
733 points gjsman-1000 | 1 comments | 26 Jul 22 03:46 UTC | HN request time: 4.561s | source
Show context
metadat ◴[26 Jul 22 03:50 UTC] 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_ ◴[26 Jul 22 05:10 UTC] 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. selfhoster11 ◴[26 Jul 22 06:08 UTC] No.32234879[source]▶
Good, if companies want those features, then they can be the ones to pay the price in privacy. Otherwise, let me set an OTP bit to disable all Management Engine kinds of functionality on the CPU permanently.