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.
Yeah, they don’t criticize the security subprocessor, they just call it a spychip and boohoo about how all the new processes have that kind of thing.
Brain-dead enough I think they have to be paid to be that way.
That sounds like it makes perfect sense from a high security culture standpoint. It is unknown and from an outside power, therefore it is presumed unsafe.
Of course right now there are a hundred reasons why you should never trust a computer to be private, but I don’t see a problem with trying to make that a hundred minus one if that’s what someone enjoys doing.
In the context of using this to punch down at a non-profit I can see some reasons.
OP is not a state level target, the consequences of them getting hacked is they home to make a police report and close some bank accounts. The non profit is not concerned with OP being targeted by the US government, their goal is to provide serviceable computers to needy people.
It’s surface level relevant to the zero waste conversation, but only if you don’t value anything but the old outdated PC. Older processors like this have such bad processing efficiency that the energy savings alone would pay for a new SBC in a year, presuming heavy use. Then there are the logistical costs and labor of managing that supply of old equipment. A few generations of architecture mean that peripheral and add-in cards are not available or wouldn’t work. The dwindling stock of donor equipment means that the resources to even assemble a working order PC will be higher than newer equipment.
There’s the same arguments to be had about older refrigeration equipment. Yes, it’s probably better to keep it serviced, but as soon as a big problem comes along a newer more efficient unit should be installed.
Disliking OP is reason enough to want them out of your feed, you don’t have to try to get them by gatekeeping what counts as zerowaste or what counts as valid activism/hobbies. You can just block them and move on.
That’s a very individualist attitude. Even if OOP is doing nothing to combat the rise of fascism, the chip issue affects everyone, including investigative journalists, activists, and others that might get state-level attention without having state-level resources (i.e. being dependent on the likes of random charity shops).
This reasoning applies equally well to other “waste reduction” hobby projects like spending hours of labor (thus “wasting” the resources it takes to keep a person alive) to fix up an old article of clothing that would otherwise have been discarded, which you could simply have replaced with new mass-produced (and therefore resource-efficient) stuff.
If you genuinely want stuff that wastes labor - like getting ancient computers to work, mending clothes, or high-context living - gone from this community, that is a consistent opinion and we can talk about that.
For the individualist thing… If there are these concerns, OP should not be just rolling his own jank setup to do his work. There are groups that could provide him with secure hardware or validate the hardware he can get.
I checked and the h16 processor they mentioned uses an Arm a5 core for trustzone functions. There are tools to audit that.
All of this is unreasonable for a charity junk shop.
You should stop trying to block the zero waste movement and stop trying to make people dependent on others.
You mean the 16h, I suppose. Tools to audit that the closed source software does what I want? That’s amusing for sure. I wonder by what magic I’m not permitted to see the code but I can use probably another closed-source blob to verify whether my boot-licking product is doing what /the maker/ intends.
Your comment is useful but just not how you intended. The tools to audit the trustzone functions would at least tell me whether a spychip is present, so I can avoid it.
I have no problem with people spending their own labor time.
I do have a problem with dictating how a charity spends their labor time, specifically in a way that would reduce their ability to provide services. If OP offered their labor to handle this consistently for the charity, I missed that.
Failing to inform yourself about how a charity operates and to oppose the sharing of that info is utter foolishness. To oppose identifying problems, exposure of them, and making improvements is essentially openly hostile to social advancement.
It’s sloppy and reckless to neglect to do some basic homework before selecting charities to support. If they are being needlessly wasteful, they are inefficient.
It’s the contrary. Sales facilitates provision of services. You’re advocating needless waste.
Probably what you missed was that a customer was in the shop with money and prepared to spend it, but couldn’t because the shop manager made a poor decision on what to accept from donors.
Maintaining a product takes time and space. The lowest margin, least power efficient, and least in demand items cost the same to sell as everything else that’s easier to sell.
They made a decision about resources.
Correction:
You will have a hard time convincing me that they thought this through: “these 2013 AMD laptops are pre-spychip, so we could save a few of the latest pre-spychip models and advertise them as pre-spychip to boost interest”.
Your spychip thing is a made up problem.
The distinction is several processor architectures and compatibility.
Go ask them to give your number to the next person they turn away.
The non-profit was not named, so your abusive hyperbole is obvious.
The msg exposes a trend likely occuring at many tech shops by charities who have not figured out how to market pre-spychip machines and likely don’t even have the awareness to know what they are tossing which is being blindly scrapped on the simple basis of age alone.
As already pointed out, you need not be targeted by feds doing tailored ops:
https://hackaday.com/2021/10/01/flaw-in-amd-platform-security-processor-affects-millions-of-computers/
This is a false dichotomy. Needy people should have security too. It also misses an important infosec principle: the principle of least privilege. If you don’t need an extra attack surface, it’s unwise to deploy it.
Nonsense. Zero waste of hardware that serves a variety of purposes does not exclude any other zero waste practice.
How foolish of you to presume heavy use on an arbitrary unknown demographic of users.
Perhaps you are in a country where they just toss e-waste into a landfill. In more responsible parts of the world, the logistical costs and labor of properly dispensing the old e-waste is /higher/ than the cost of selling it to a buyer who will use it.
Blaming designed obsolescence on the older hardware when interoperability matters – amusing, if you only knew that USB 3 is backwards compatible with USB 2 and that gigabit ethernet is backwards compatible with its predecessor. There is also an absurdity with refusing to buy something designed for upgrades on the basis of /something/ being incompatible, when in fact the new hardware is dispensing of older standards. New laptops are soldering in RAM and if the battery is not soldered in it’s not using standard replaceable cells but rather proprietary batteries that amount to designed obsolescence. Copious cheap old upgrades can be trivially acquired when chronic upgraders dispense of their old gear.
The street market is flooded with old RAM at dirt cheap prices. We don’t need factory new RAM to upgrade our gear.
A 2008 thinkpad is what I use today, after 18 years. The shit you are advocating now has little chance of being usable 18 years from now as the designed obsolescence has evolved and enshitification of products have become increasingly insideous.
There is no shortage. It’s the thesis in fact. So much donor equipment is coming in that they must be selective.
Apart from failing to grasp the infosec factor, by fixating on security likely as a not-so-ethical consumer yourself you missed the fact that some consumers simply oppose anti-consumer products even if they don’t give a rat’s ass about security. Individual non-corporate consumers are being pushed to buy products that were made for corps and work against their interests generally.
Every processor and Soc manufactured since 2012 has some form of security subprocessor, or TPM, or something that you are classifying as a made up term, and which you won’t acknowledge are not black boxes across the board like you seem to be implying.
You are wrong about the tech and fearmongering, and you seem entitled.
If you offered the non -profit your time to curate these parts that would be great, or if you seemed more interested in learning then derisive that would have also have been great.
TPM is a different but similar problem. It’s unclear why you are falsely claiming that I will not acknowledge what they are. Where do you get that from?
(edit) I would be in favor of a charity shop also stocking a few pre-TPM laptops.
I believe you are wrong about the tech and pushing cavalier disregard for wise infosec principles on the basis that you think the spychip can only be exploited by a nation state doing tailored ops. You lack some basic knowledge about bugs.
This is not mutually exclusive to exposing inefficiencies. It’s wholly irrelevant to the thread.
(edit) I am exposing a trend that is likely global. If I were to volunteer in my local shop, I would still be exposing this problem. And you would still be taking the cavalier stance that running a spychip is a wise practice if not specifically targeted by a threat agent.
I did not mean to block you from proving that only a nation state can exploit the spychip. Feel free to educate me.
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/75183544/28016093
That comment.
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
Good luck tilting at windmills.
What you linked is not my comment.
Nonsense. Any botnet would benefit from exploiting it. The threat is not limited to targeted attack.
Nonsense. Intel admits that the IME enables remote access.
Of course.
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.
Yes I know… It’s how you responded to that
Are you just a chatbot that’s prompted to be contrarian or something???