←back to thread

The Dangers of Microsoft Pluton

(gabrielsieben.tech)
733 points gjsman-1000 | 2 comments | 26 Jul 22 03:46 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
__void ◴[26 Jul 22 07:08 UTC] No.32235294[source]▶
nowadays 98% of things implying "security" are actually unwanted products, protections for "the other side" or trivial distortions of reality where, conveyed by "security" itself, the user himself becomes the product

- no, I don't need protections for the side channel, I never asked for them

- no, I don't need a unique identifier, who is the demented person who asked you for it

- no, I am not going to glitch the power supply, and even if I did it means I am interested in doing it and wish it worked instead I was prevented from doing it

- no, I don't care at all about having a hw store for certificates, which are ephemeral and dropped from above anyway so what am I supposed to trust?

- and so on

"not secure by design" nowadays comes close to being a coveted feature

replies(9): >>32235558 #>>32235757 #>>32235785 #>>32236328 #>>32238085 #>>32239187 #>>32239697 #>>32240056 #>>32241540 #
drpixie ◴[26 Jul 22 07:58 UTC] No.32235558[source]▶
Yes ... I certainly look for chips WITHOUT certain "security features" when I'm building a system - makes it more difficult for the "bad guys" (really, just the greedy guys) to force me to do things the way they want.
replies(1): >>32236846 #
1. autoexec ◴[26 Jul 22 11:25 UTC] No.32236846[source]▶
What chips are left? When they've got Intel and AMD that's the vast majority right there. We really need some kind of open and transparent chip manufacturer who is unwilling to infest their product with user hostile code at Microsoft's demand.
replies(1): >>32238660 #
2. drpixie ◴[26 Jul 22 14:23 UTC] No.32238660[source]▶
Hmmm, yes. The Core-X seem helpfully lacking in undesirable features, but the standard range is certainly heavily encumbered. If I can get a half descent RISC-V chip and motherboard, that might be the go...