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.
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???
Nothing in my response to that post expresses or even implies an acceptance of TPMs.
Your inability to simply directly quote what you are claiming is more characteristic of a chatbot. Why can’t you quote my words that lead you to believe I have endorsed TPMs?
It’s pretty clear I made the assumption TPMS would fall under your “spychip” categorization