I read about this before -
something about a secret instruction set for the CPUs  ?
The full instruction sets were always published before.



https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/16/tech/china-intel-security-review-intl-hnk/index.html

Thu October 17, 2024

Intel is a security risk for China, says influential industry group.


https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/gettyimages-2178013764.jpg



Beijing Reuters  —

Intel products sold in China should be subject to a security review, the Cybersecurity Association of China (CSAC) said on Wednesday, alleging the US chipmaker has “constantly harmed” the country’s national security and interests.

CSAC in its post accuses Intel chips, including Xeon processors used for artificial intelligence tasks, of carrying several vulnerabilities, concluding that Intel “has major defects when it comes to product quality, security management, indicating that it is extremely irresponsible attitude towards customers.”

The industry group goes on to state that
operating systems embedded in all Intel processors are vulnerable to backdoors
created by the US National Security Agency (NSA).

“This poses a great security threat to the critical information infrastructures of countries all over the world, including China … the use of Intel products poses a serious risk to national security,” CSAC said.

Where there is money, there are always "experts" offering to fix the problem.

In fact this expert may have simply taken a few million from AMD, in exchange for his reputation. Or a few thousand, depending on what his reputation is worth.

https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/6yk10g/hundreds_of_undocumented_32bit_cpu_instructions/


Hundreds of undocumented 32-bit CPU instructions found,
with large overlapping regions even across many different manufacturers.

COMMENT

cyleleghorn
•
7y ago
•

The video explains how the undocumented commands were found, and even shows you how you can test your own CPU for hidden instructions or hardware bugs. These are commands that no compiler even recognizes as valid code, but execute nonetheless when run via an exploit.

It doesn't mean we know what they do, but they are there and you can run a script to find them. The video then goes on to show how these vulnerabilities can be exploited, in some cases causing a 100% CPU lockup. This is very interesting stuff, and points to at least some level of collaboration with the undocumented code amongst rivaling manufacturers.

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 7:47pm:

Where there is money, there are always "experts" offering to fix the problem. In fact this expert may have simply taken a few million from AMD, in exchange for his reputation. Or a few thousand, depending on what his reputation is worth.

No - this is real - it's well known about.

Chinese native processors Zhaoxin and Loongon, are woefully weak products. They are about 6 years behind, and overpriced into the Chinese market (eg government who are required to buy them.) They're "fabless" too: China does not actually make them.

How is it in any way plausible that China could bribe Intel (one of the most successful manufacturers of anything) to put back-doors in their extremely profitable products?

Talk is cheap, and this is poo talk from a competitor.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 7:53pm:

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 7:47pm: Where there is money, there are always "experts" offering to fix the problem. In fact this expert may have simply taken a few million from AMD, in exchange for his reputation. Or a few thousand, depending on what his reputation is worth. No - this is real - it's well known about.

OK then, how do I access the "hidden instruction set" of my Intel processor. It's not particularly old (about 2 years) but I suppose there's a conspiracy of hackers and the government (diametrically opposed one would think) to conceal any "hidden instruction set demo" which might prove to me the existence of the hidden instruction set.

A hidden instruction set is a rather big deal. Putting extra instructions which can only be accessed by particular programs using a particular compiler, would be wasted space in the part of the processor where space is time.

You're hypothesizing lower performance, for ulterior motives, in a market where performance is a big deal. How many billions would it take, do you think, for Intel to risk its historical lead over AMD?

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 8:09pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 7:53pm: Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 7:47pm: Where there is money, there are always "experts" offering to fix the problem. In fact this expert may have simply taken a few million from AMD, in exchange for his reputation. Or a few thousand, depending on what his reputation is worth. No - this is real - it's well known about. OK then, how do I access the "hidden instruction set" of my Intel processor. It's not particularly old (about 2 years) but I suppose there's a conspiracy of hackers and the government (diametrically opposed one would think) to conceal any "hidden instruction set demo" which might prove to me the existence of the hidden instruction set. A hidden instruction set is a rather big deal. Putting extra instructions which can only be accessed by particular programs using a particular compiler, would be wasted space in the part of the processor where space is time. You're hypothesizing lower performance, for ulterior motives, in a market where performance is a big deal. How many billions would it take, do you think, for Intel to risk its historical lead over AMD?

Languages like C++ allow you to access the instruction set directly but
it's not much use unless you know what that instruction does.
The NSA knows - they forced Intel to put those instructions in.

Another way is buy a system development kit for that CPU and tinker around with it.

I can only speculate as to what it might do -
perhaps when you use encryption it stores the 2 secret prime numbers somewhere
which can then be sent off to the NSA to decode all your banking and other encrypted work?

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 7:58pm:

Chinese native processors Zhaoxin and Loongon, are woefully weak products. They are about 6 years behind, and overpriced into the Chinese market (eg government who are required to buy them.) They're "fabless" too: China does not actually make them. How is it in any way plausible that China could bribe Intel (one of the most successful manufacturers of anything) to put back-doors in their extremely profitable products? Talk is cheap, and this is poo talk from a competitor.

It's not about China having undocumented instructions, China is worried Intel have US Govt backdoors, just as the US is suspect of Huawei security risks

Setanta wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 8:20pm:

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 7:58pm: Chinese native processors Zhaoxin and Loongon, are woefully weak products. They are about 6 years behind, and overpriced into the Chinese market (eg government who are required to buy them.) They're "fabless" too: China does not actually make them. How is it in any way plausible that China could bribe Intel (one of the most successful manufacturers of anything) to put back-doors in their extremely profitable products? Talk is cheap, and this is poo talk from a competitor. It's not about China having undocumented instructions, China is worried Intel have US Govt backdoors, just as the US is suspect of Huawei security risks

Yes - China does it the Western countries and now we do it to them and everyone else.   :-[

Bobby. wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 8:15pm:

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 8:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 7:53pm: Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 7:47pm: Where there is money, there are always "experts" offering to fix the problem. In fact this expert may have simply taken a few million from AMD, in exchange for his reputation. Or a few thousand, depending on what his reputation is worth. No - this is real - it's well known about. OK then, how do I access the "hidden instruction set" of my Intel processor. It's not particularly old (about 2 years) but I suppose there's a conspiracy of hackers and the government (diametrically opposed one would think) to conceal any "hidden instruction set demo" which might prove to me the existence of the hidden instruction set. A hidden instruction set is a rather big deal. Putting extra instructions which can only be accessed by particular programs using a particular compiler, would be wasted space in the part of the processor where space is time. You're hypothesizing lower performance, for ulterior motives, in a market where performance is a big deal. How many billions would it take, do you think, for Intel to risk its historical lead over AMD? Languages like C++ allow you to access the instruction set directly but it's not much use unless you know what that instruction does. The NSA knows - they forced Intel to put those instructions in. Another way is buy a system development kit for that CPU and tinker around with it. I can only speculate as to what it might do - perhaps when you use encryption it stores the 2 secret prime numbers somewhere which can then be sent off to the NSA to decode all your banking and other encrypted work?

"The US government bought a backdoor" is something I can believe. Nobody else could afford it.

But it's a basic of spycraft, that a backdoor exposed is a backdoor lost. Until it is common knowledge and there are work arounds (aka protections) the US government isn't giving the backdoor to Australian government.

Also, don't hackers find these things within days or weeks? Don't the half dozen anti-virus brands, provide protections (for fear of their competitors.)? And there's always linux, as you mentioned. Do you think Microsoft are going to expose their customers to a backdoor, which Apple or Linux protect against?

And I say again, why would Intel risk their market to AMD? Are we looking at the jewel of all conspiracy theories: "they're ALL in on it"?

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 8:26pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 8:15pm: Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 8:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 7:53pm: Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 7:47pm: Where there is money, there are always "experts" offering to fix the problem. In fact this expert may have simply taken a few million from AMD, in exchange for his reputation. Or a few thousand, depending on what his reputation is worth. No - this is real - it's well known about. OK then, how do I access the "hidden instruction set" of my Intel processor. It's not particularly old (about 2 years) but I suppose there's a conspiracy of hackers and the government (diametrically opposed one would think) to conceal any "hidden instruction set demo" which might prove to me the existence of the hidden instruction set. A hidden instruction set is a rather big deal. Putting extra instructions which can only be accessed by particular programs using a particular compiler, would be wasted space in the part of the processor where space is time. You're hypothesizing lower performance, for ulterior motives, in a market where performance is a big deal. How many billions would it take, do you think, for Intel to risk its historical lead over AMD? Languages like C++ allow you to access the instruction set directly but it's not much use unless you know what that instruction does. The NSA knows - they forced Intel to put those instructions in. Another way is buy a system development kit for that CPU and tinker around with it. I can only speculate as to what it might do - perhaps when you use encryption it stores the 2 secret prime numbers somewhere which can then be sent off to the NSA to decode all your banking and other encrypted work? "The US government bought a backdoor" is something I can believe. Nobody else could afford it. But it's a basic of spycraft, that a backdoor exposed is a backdoor lost. Until it is common knowledge and there are work arounds (aka protections) the US government isn't giving the backdoor to Australian government. Also, don't hackers find these things within days or weeks? Don't the half dozen anti-virus brands, provide protections (for fear of their competitors.)? And there's always linux, as you mentioned. Do you think Microsoft are going to expose their customers to a backdoor, which Apple or Linux protect against? And I say again, why would Intel risk their market to AMD? Are we looking at the jewel of all conspiracy theories: "they're ALL in on it"?

Software that runs on your computer, that's possible. Instructions in the CPU not so easy. You can decompile software and inspect it, step through it with a debugger. You can't do that with a CPU.

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 8:26pm:

"The US government bought a backdoor" is something I can believe. Nobody else could afford it. But it's a basic of spycraft, that a backdoor exposed is a backdoor lost. Until it is common knowledge and there are work arounds (aka protections) the US government isn't giving the backdoor to Australian government. Also, don't hackers find these things within days or weeks? Don't the half dozen anti-virus brands, provide protections (for fear of their competitors.)? And there's always linux, as you mentioned. Do you think Microsoft are going to expose their customers to a backdoor, which Apple or Linux protect against? And I say again, why would Intel risk their market to AMD? Are we looking at the jewel of all conspiracy theories: "they're ALL in on it"?

My bet is that all those companies are forced to put in back doors on their products.
Intel,
Microsoft,
Apple,

but Linux is different.
The order is also made secret so that they can't talk about it.

There is a rumor on the internet that ever since Win95 back in 1995
Bill Gates was forced to hand over - against his will -
the source code of all Windows operating systems to the NSA -
and that goes right through till now with Win11.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Chinese forced Huawei to do the same.

Setanta wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 8:20pm:

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 7:58pm: Chinese native processors Zhaoxin and Loongon, are woefully weak products. They are about 6 years behind, and overpriced into the Chinese market (eg government who are required to buy them.) They're "fabless" too: China does not actually make them. How is it in any way plausible that China could bribe Intel (one of the most successful manufacturers of anything) to put back-doors in their extremely profitable products? Talk is cheap, and this is poo talk from a competitor. It's not about China having undocumented instructions, China is worried Intel have US Govt backdoors, just as the US is suspect of Huawei security risks

Chinese chips would get a huge advantage in the world market, if Intel and AMD were compromised. Only some people require 2024 performance (eg some gamers) and if a government authority in India or Nigeria is looking to roll out a new fleet, their first concern will be security, their second concern will be price, and bring up the rear will be performance.

So if it's the US government crippling Intel chips, I could believe that. They might well risk the foreign sphere, to get near-universal surveillance of the domestic sphere.

But still it's an incredibly risky idea. If they get caught, they've screwed Intel (and perhaps AMD) destroying an export market, breaking forever the patents on chip design, and cutting off surveillance to the rest of the world. China will make the "trusted" chips, until they get caught too.

I'm not saying the US and its agencies wouldn't do something so stupid. Who knows really. They've covered up huge blunders before.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 8:33pm:

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 8:26pm: "The US government bought a backdoor" is something I can believe. Nobody else could afford it. But it's a basic of spycraft, that a backdoor exposed is a backdoor lost. Until it is common knowledge and there are work arounds (aka protections) the US government isn't giving the backdoor to Australian government. Also, don't hackers find these things within days or weeks? Don't the half dozen anti-virus brands, provide protections (for fear of their competitors.)? And there's always linux, as you mentioned. Do you think Microsoft are going to expose their customers to a backdoor, which Apple or Linux protect against? And I say again, why would Intel risk their market to AMD? Are we looking at the jewel of all conspiracy theories: "they're ALL in on it"? My bet is that all those companies are forced to put in back doors on their products. Intel, Microsoft, Apple, but Linux is different. The order is also made secret so that they can't talk about it. There is a rumor on the internet that ever since Win95 back in 1995 Bill Gates was forced to hand over - against his will - the source code of all Windows operating systems to the NSA - and that goes right through till now with Win11. It wouldn't surprise me if the Chinese forced Huawei to do the same.

Software in the sense of what operating system you run or what programs you run on it are not the issue. It's the hardware code and what Microcode provides.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 8:33pm:

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 8:26pm: "The US government bought a backdoor" is something I can believe. Nobody else could afford it. But it's a basic of spycraft, that a backdoor exposed is a backdoor lost. Until it is common knowledge and there are work arounds (aka protections) the US government isn't giving the backdoor to Australian government. Also, don't hackers find these things within days or weeks? Don't the half dozen anti-virus brands, provide protections (for fear of their competitors.)? And there's always linux, as you mentioned. Do you think Microsoft are going to expose their customers to a backdoor, which Apple or Linux protect against? And I say again, why would Intel risk their market to AMD? Are we looking at the jewel of all conspiracy theories: "they're ALL in on it"? My bet is that all those companies are forced to put in back doors on their products. Intel, Microsoft, Apple, but Linux is different. The order is also made secret so that they can't talk about it.

Ha-ha, nice joke. Linux developers step around copyright like it's a crack in the footpath. They're not bound by secrecy, because secrecy is inimical to the whole FOSS ideology.


Quote:

There is a rumor on the internet that ever since Win95 back in 1995 Bill Gates was forced to hand over - against his will - the source code of all Windows operating systems to the NSA - and that goes right through till now with Win11. It wouldn't surprise me if the Chinese forced Huawei to do the same.

Seeing the source code is one thing. Inserting calls to "hidden instructions" without anyone knowing, is conspiracy poo.

Setanta wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 8:42pm:

Software in the sense of what operating system you run or what programs you run on it are not the issue. It's the hardware code and what Microcode provides.

That's correct  but we are talking about an unknown instruction set -

well -  known only to the CPU designers and the NSA and their co-conspirators.

Setanta wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 8:42pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 8:33pm: Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 8:26pm: "The US government bought a backdoor" is something I can believe. Nobody else could afford it. But it's a basic of spycraft, that a backdoor exposed is a backdoor lost. Until it is common knowledge and there are work arounds (aka protections) the US government isn't giving the backdoor to Australian government. Also, don't hackers find these things within days or weeks? Don't the half dozen anti-virus brands, provide protections (for fear of their competitors.)? And there's always linux, as you mentioned. Do you think Microsoft are going to expose their customers to a backdoor, which Apple or Linux protect against? And I say again, why would Intel risk their market to AMD? Are we looking at the jewel of all conspiracy theories: "they're ALL in on it"? My bet is that all those companies are forced to put in back doors on their products. Intel, Microsoft, Apple, but Linux is different. The order is also made secret so that they can't talk about it. There is a rumor on the internet that ever since Win95 back in 1995 Bill Gates was forced to hand over - against his will - the source code of all Windows operating systems to the NSA - and that goes right through till now with Win11. It wouldn't surprise me if the Chinese forced Huawei to do the same. Software in the sense of what operating system you run or what programs you run on it are not the issue. It's the hardware code and what Microcode provides.

64 bits is a scary number to humans: about 1.8×10^19 different possible instructions.

But I can guarantee that someone has tried all 2^64 possibilities, to see if the CPU does something other than "error."

Big numbers don't bother a computer, and they don't bother a serious computer hacker either.

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 8:54pm:

64 bits is a scary number to humans: about 1.8×10^19 different possible instructions. But I can guarantee that someone has tried all 2^64 possibilities, to see if the CPU does something other than "error." Big numbers don't bother a computer, and they don't bother a serious computer hacker either.

We're getting a bit technical now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_instruction_set_architectures

I'm sure companies like Norton security could develop software to detect
unknown instructions in scripts etc.

The question is - are they in on it too?

Are our computers part of a complete security farce?

Bobby. wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 8:53pm:

Setanta wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 8:42pm: Software in the sense of what operating system you run or what programs you run on it are not the issue. It's the hardware code and what Microcode provides. That's correct  but we are talking about an unknown instruction set - well -  known only to the CPU designers and the NSA and their co-conspirators.

I suppose it's possible that the instruction set could be 128 bits wide. But if so, it would slow the processor down to have to read 128 bits for every instruction (and bear in mind that instructions are sometimes passed from one part of the processor to the other.) Even assuming the other hardware passed such an instruction, the obvious action would be to cull the top 64 bits.

But even assuming that 128 bit instructions somehow get to the processor (by a corrupted compiler) and are somehow processed to a cause a "hidden instruction" to be executed, this is still something that a hacker could detect.

They basically just have to do <crazy instruction> <input> and see if they get something other than "illegal instruction" back. Do it over and over (perhaps while they take a much needed nap.) They do that 2^32 times, or even 2^64 times, for every possible instruction.

Well maybe the "hidden instruction" requires a specific string or else it returns "illegal instruction." But remember that there is more than one hacker. A hacker may be curious enough to record the timing of every "illegal instruction" which comes back. Then they have one suspect instruction number, and can start peppering it with random strings to try to guess the "password" of that instruction. Imagine the fame they could gain, not just finding a hidden instruction but finding its password.

Even the Australian Government have access to a lot of Microsoft stuff including source code and in some cases cryptographic code.  Our government may have the keys to your computer.

This is from a government release in 2002. This is what the Australian government were admitting over 20 years ago.


Quote:

Government Security Program: Fact Sheet Overview The Government Security Program (GSP) is one important facet of Microsoft’s efforts to help address the unique security requirements of governments around the world. The GSP provides national governments access to Windows® source code and information they need to be confident in the security of the Microsoft® Windows platform. This program embodies the principles of Microsoft’s Trustworthy Computing and Shared Source initiatives, and is built upon the cornerstones of transparency and partnership. Benefits Participation in the GSP affords national governments the following benefits: • Online access to source code for the most current versions, beta releases and service packs of Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003 and Windows CE.Net; • Engineering-level understanding of Windows architecture through expansive disclosure of Microsoft technical information; • Enhanced ability to conduct security and privacy audits and to design, build and maintain demonstrably secure computing environments; • Access to cryptographic code and development tools, subject to U.S. export regulations; • Source code training; • Communication and collaboration with Microsoft security professionals; and • Opportunities for visits by agency representatives to Microsoft development facilities in Redmond, Washington. https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=jcpaa/electronic_info/submissions/sub64.pdf

Bobby. wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 9:05pm:

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 8:54pm: 64 bits is a scary number to humans: about 1.8×10^19 different possible instructions. But I can guarantee that someone has tried all 2^64 possibilities, to see if the CPU does something other than "error." Big numbers don't bother a computer, and they don't bother a serious computer hacker either. We're getting a bit technical now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_instruction_set_architectures I'm sure companies like Norton security could develop software to detect unknown instructions in scripts etc. The question is - are they in on it too? Are our computers part of a complete security farce?

Quote:

The question is - are they in on it too?

They are part of it. They are legally prevented from doing anything. It would be a national security crime.

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 9:08pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 8:53pm: Setanta wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 8:42pm: Software in the sense of what operating system you run or what programs you run on it are not the issue. It's the hardware code and what Microcode provides. That's correct  but we are talking about an unknown instruction set - well -  known only to the CPU designers and the NSA and their co-conspirators. I suppose it's possible that the instruction set could be 128 bits wide. But if so, it would slow the processor down to have to read 128 bits for every instruction (and bear in mind that instructions are sometimes passed from one part of the processor to the other.) Even assuming the other hardware passed such an instruction, the obvious action would be to cull the top 64 bits. But even assuming that 128 bit instructions somehow get to the processor (by a corrupted compiler) and are somehow processed to a cause a "hidden instruction" to be executed, this is still something that a hacker could detect. They basically just have to do <crazy instruction> <input> and see if they get something other than "illegal instruction" back. Do it over and over (perhaps while they take a much needed nap.) They do that 2^32 times, or even 2^64 times, for every possible instruction. Well maybe the "hidden instruction" requires a specific string or else it returns "illegal instruction." But remember that there is more than one hacker. A hacker may be curious enough to record the timing of every "illegal instruction" which comes back. Then they have one suspect instruction number, and can start peppering it with random strings to try to guess the "password" of that instruction. Imagine the fame they could gain, not just finding a hidden instruction but finding its password.

Sep 1, 2017

A processor is not a trusted black box for running code; on the contrary, modern x86 chips are
packed full of secret instructions and hardware bugs.
In this talk, we'll demonstrate how page fault analysis and
some creative processor fuzzing can be used to exhaustively search the
x86 instruction set and uncover the secrets buried in your chipset.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrksBdWcZgQ

Dnarever wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 9:17pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 9:05pm: Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 8:54pm: 64 bits is a scary number to humans: about 1.8×10^19 different possible instructions. But I can guarantee that someone has tried all 2^64 possibilities, to see if the CPU does something other than "error." Big numbers don't bother a computer, and they don't bother a serious computer hacker either. We're getting a bit technical now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_instruction_set_architectures I'm sure companies like Norton security could develop software to detect unknown instructions in scripts etc. The question is - are they in on it too? Are our computers part of a complete security farce? Quote: The question is - are they in on it too? They are part of it. They are legally prevented from doing anything. It would be a national security crime.

You're right - it's all top secret.
It shows the power of Govts.

I wont say the product but there was a time when Australia were introducing a new major telecommunications system. The Australian company involved were delayed in approval to release the new product because the government were not yet able to break into the systems encryption.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 9:14pm:

Even the Australian Government have access to a lot of Microsoft stuff including source code and in some cases cryptographic code.  Our government may have the keys to your computer. This is from a government release in 2002. This is what the Australian government were admitting over 20 years ago. Quote: Government Security Program: Fact Sheet Overview The Government Security Program (GSP) is one important facet of Microsoft’s efforts to help address the unique security requirements of governments around the world. The GSP provides national governments access to Windows® source code and information they need to be confident in the security of the Microsoft® Windows platform. This program embodies the principles of Microsoft’s Trustworthy Computing and Shared Source initiatives, and is built upon the cornerstones of transparency and partnership. Benefits Participation in the GSP affords national governments the following benefits: • Online access to source code for the most current versions, beta releases and service packs of Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003 and Windows CE.Net; • Engineering-level understanding of Windows architecture through expansive disclosure of Microsoft technical information; • Enhanced ability to conduct security and privacy audits and to design, build and maintain demonstrably secure computing environments; • Access to cryptographic code and development tools, subject to U.S. export regulations; • Source code training; • Communication and collaboration with Microsoft security professionals; and • Opportunities for visits by agency representatives to Microsoft development facilities in Redmond, Washington. https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=jcpaa/electronic_info/submissions/sub64.pdf

Well I've been hacked by the Australian Government (or even more pathetically, by the NSW Government.) It was pretty bad for a while, I think they were setting their trainees on me and they BROKE STUFF. I had to re-install Windows at least twice, and Linux more times than I can count.

Perhaps relevantly, I did a bit of harmless hacking when I was a University student. I had talent, so I was a "person of interest" even after I dropped Computer Science after a year. The most talented of my cohorts were poached by IBM and the government.

So why didn't I become a full blood computer hacker? Well I'm not really that smart with systems someone else designed. Too much rote learning. I'm a more creative type, and specifically to computer hacking: government passed laws against that.

Anyway. Every time I ran Linux I got rooted very quickly. Open source is still the best way, but it does expose you to hackers.

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 9:08pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 8:53pm: Setanta wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 8:42pm: Software in the sense of what operating system you run or what programs you run on it are not the issue. It's the hardware code and what Microcode provides. That's correct  but we are talking about an unknown instruction set - well -  known only to the CPU designers and the NSA and their co-conspirators. I suppose it's possible that the instruction set could be 128 bits wide. But if so, it would slow the processor down to have to read 128 bits for every instruction (and bear in mind that instructions are sometimes passed from one part of the processor to the other.) Even assuming the other hardware passed such an instruction, the obvious action would be to cull the top 64 bits. But even assuming that 128 bit instructions somehow get to the processor (by a corrupted compiler) and are somehow processed to a cause a "hidden instruction" to be executed, this is still something that a hacker could detect. They basically just have to do <crazy instruction> <input> and see if they get something other than "illegal instruction" back. Do it over and over (perhaps while they take a much needed nap.) They do that 2^32 times, or even 2^64 times, for every possible instruction. Well maybe the "hidden instruction" requires a specific string or else it returns "illegal instruction." But remember that there is more than one hacker. A hacker may be curious enough to record the timing of every "illegal instruction" which comes back. Then they have one suspect instruction number, and can start peppering it with random strings to try to guess the "password" of that instruction. Imagine the fame they could gain, not just finding a hidden instruction but finding its password.

Quote:

I suppose it's possible that the instruction set could be 128 bits wide

32 bit processing was limited to 4 G of access space. This was a restrictive limit.

64 bit processing allows what to us is unlimited addressing space.

Going to 128 bit is technically difficult - i.e. not all 64 bit processors work correctly. there have been a lot of failed processors developed. but the main reason is that to do this would be fixing a problem that does not currently exist. It would be a huge expense for something that is just not needed.

32-bit  -  4,294,967,295 This is where the 4 G limit comes from.

64-bit - 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 This is the number we currently use

128-bit  - 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,455 We don't need this yet and it would cost many $ Billions possibly $ Trillions.

Each step is exponential.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 9:18pm:

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 9:08pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 8:53pm: Setanta wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 8:42pm: Software in the sense of what operating system you run or what programs you run on it are not the issue. It's the hardware code and what Microcode provides. That's correct  but we are talking about an unknown instruction set - well -  known only to the CPU designers and the NSA and their co-conspirators. I suppose it's possible that the instruction set could be 128 bits wide. But if so, it would slow the processor down to have to read 128 bits for every instruction (and bear in mind that instructions are sometimes passed from one part of the processor to the other.) Even assuming the other hardware passed such an instruction, the obvious action would be to cull the top 64 bits. But even assuming that 128 bit instructions somehow get to the processor (by a corrupted compiler) and are somehow processed to a cause a "hidden instruction" to be executed, this is still something that a hacker could detect. They basically just have to do <crazy instruction> <input> and see if they get something other than "illegal instruction" back. Do it over and over (perhaps while they take a much needed nap.) They do that 2^32 times, or even 2^64 times, for every possible instruction. Well maybe the "hidden instruction" requires a specific string or else it returns "illegal instruction." But remember that there is more than one hacker. A hacker may be curious enough to record the timing of every "illegal instruction" which comes back. Then they have one suspect instruction number, and can start peppering it with random strings to try to guess the "password" of that instruction. Imagine the fame they could gain, not just finding a hidden instruction but finding its password. Sep 1, 2017 A processor is not a trusted black box for running code; on the contrary, modern x86 chips are packed full of secret instructions and hardware bugs.

So if there are secret instructions, what are their numbers?

To make a processor execute an instruction, you need to give the processor a number.

Now the most obvious reason that neither you or anyone else can give the number of a secret instruction ... is that it's not really secret.

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 9:36pm:

So if there are secret instructions, what are their numbers? To make a processor execute an instruction, you need to give the processor a number. Now the most obvious reason that neither you or anyone else can give the number of a secret instruction ... is that it's not really secret.

The video might tell you.

again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrksBdWcZgQ

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 9:28pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 9:14pm: Even the Australian Government have access to a lot of Microsoft stuff including source code and in some cases cryptographic code.  Our government may have the keys to your computer. This is from a government release in 2002. This is what the Australian government were admitting over 20 years ago. Quote: Government Security Program: Fact Sheet Overview The Government Security Program (GSP) is one important facet of Microsoft’s efforts to help address the unique security requirements of governments around the world. The GSP provides national governments access to Windows® source code and information they need to be confident in the security of the Microsoft® Windows platform. This program embodies the principles of Microsoft’s Trustworthy Computing and Shared Source initiatives, and is built upon the cornerstones of transparency and partnership. Benefits Participation in the GSP affords national governments the following benefits: • Online access to source code for the most current versions, beta releases and service packs of Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003 and Windows CE.Net; • Engineering-level understanding of Windows architecture through expansive disclosure of Microsoft technical information; • Enhanced ability to conduct security and privacy audits and to design, build and maintain demonstrably secure computing environments; • Access to cryptographic code and development tools, subject to U.S. export regulations; • Source code training; • Communication and collaboration with Microsoft security professionals; and • Opportunities for visits by agency representatives to Microsoft development facilities in Redmond, Washington. https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=jcpaa/electronic_info/submissions/sub64.pdf Well I've been hacked by the Australian Government (or even more pathetically, by the NSW Government.) It was pretty bad for a while, I think they were setting their trainees on me and they BROKE STUFF. I had to re-install Windows at least twice, and Linux more times than I can count. Perhaps relevantly, I did a bit of harmless hacking when I was a University student. I had talent, so I was a "person of interest" even after I dropped Computer Science after a year. The most talented of my cohorts were poached by IBM and the government. So why didn't I become a full blood computer hacker? Well I'm not really that smart with systems someone else designed. Too much rote learning. I'm a more creative type, and specifically to computer hacking: government passed laws against that. Anyway. Every time I ran Linux I got rooted very quickly. Open source is still the best way, but it does expose you to hackers.

Did some IT security courses with a couple of police hackers (not what they called themself) real scary smart guys.

Was never into Hacking the closest I got was with some corporate PEN testing and internal access and or recovery to access broken computers and servers.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 9:33pm:

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 9:08pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 8:53pm: Setanta wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 8:42pm: Software in the sense of what operating system you run or what programs you run on it are not the issue. It's the hardware code and what Microcode provides. That's correct  but we are talking about an unknown instruction set - well -  known only to the CPU designers and the NSA and their co-conspirators. I suppose it's possible that the instruction set could be 128 bits wide. But if so, it would slow the processor down to have to read 128 bits for every instruction (and bear in mind that instructions are sometimes passed from one part of the processor to the other.) Even assuming the other hardware passed such an instruction, the obvious action would be to cull the top 64 bits. But even assuming that 128 bit instructions somehow get to the processor (by a corrupted compiler) and are somehow processed to a cause a "hidden instruction" to be executed, this is still something that a hacker could detect. They basically just have to do <crazy instruction> <input> and see if they get something other than "illegal instruction" back. Do it over and over (perhaps while they take a much needed nap.) They do that 2^32 times, or even 2^64 times, for every possible instruction. Well maybe the "hidden instruction" requires a specific string or else it returns "illegal instruction." But remember that there is more than one hacker. A hacker may be curious enough to record the timing of every "illegal instruction" which comes back. Then they have one suspect instruction number, and can start peppering it with random strings to try to guess the "password" of that instruction. Imagine the fame they could gain, not just finding a hidden instruction but finding its password. Quote: I suppose it's possible that the instruction set could be 128 bits wide 32 bit processing was limited to 4 G of access space. This was a restrictive limit. 64 bit processing allows what to us is unlimited addressing space.

Effectively unlimited, for now. "Over 18 quintillion" which certainly covers the hard disk capacity of your home network and your work network. But actually it's a bit limiting when considering the internet. IP-v6 has an address space of 128 bits.[/quote]


Quote:

Going to 128 bit is technically difficult - i.e. not all 64 bit processors work correctly. there have been a lot of failed processors developed. but the main reason is that to do this would be fixing a problem that does not currently exist. It would be a huge expense for something that is just not needed. 32-bit  -  4,294,967,295 This is where the 4 G limit comes from. 64-bit - 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 This is the number we currently use 128-bit  - 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,455 We don't need this

It's a sensible upgrade for internet addresses. 64 bit isn't actually necessary yet, but the new domains are largely IP-v6, and if I was founding a website I would make sure it is registered in v4 AND v6.

Wasn't it a bummer for you, when hard disks got stuck at 4G? You could pay more for a faster disk, when all you wanted was a bigger disk.

Maybe it's a bloke thing. Bigger is always better than faster, when it comes to hard disks.

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 9:47pm:

It's a sensible upgrade for internet addresses. 64 bit isn't actually necessary yet, but the new domains are largely IP-v6, and if I was founding a website I would make sure it is registered in v4 AND v6. Wasn't it a bummer for you, when hard disks got stuck at 4G? You could pay more for a faster disk, when all you wanted was a bigger disk. Maybe it's a bloke thing. Bigger is always better than faster, when it comes to hard disks.

That 4G limit applied to Exchange 5.5 corporate mail servers. A mid sized company had it whole organisations email store limited to 4G. The work arounds were expensive and ugly.

These days companies can have individual mail users with 10G of email. Imagine when the whole company was sharing 4G.  OH and best of all when the 4G run out the email server would stop. Nobody would recieve or send any email.

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 9:47pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 9:33pm: Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 9:08pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 8:53pm: Setanta wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 8:42pm: Software in the sense of what operating system you run or what programs you run on it are not the issue. It's the hardware code and what Microcode provides. That's correct  but we are talking about an unknown instruction set - well -  known only to the CPU designers and the NSA and their co-conspirators. I suppose it's possible that the instruction set could be 128 bits wide. But if so, it would slow the processor down to have to read 128 bits for every instruction (and bear in mind that instructions are sometimes passed from one part of the processor to the other.) Even assuming the other hardware passed such an instruction, the obvious action would be to cull the top 64 bits. But even assuming that 128 bit instructions somehow get to the processor (by a corrupted compiler) and are somehow processed to a cause a "hidden instruction" to be executed, this is still something that a hacker could detect. They basically just have to do <crazy instruction> <input> and see if they get something other than "illegal instruction" back. Do it over and over (perhaps while they take a much needed nap.) They do that 2^32 times, or even 2^64 times, for every possible instruction. Well maybe the "hidden instruction" requires a specific string or else it returns "illegal instruction." But remember that there is more than one hacker. A hacker may be curious enough to record the timing of every "illegal instruction" which comes back. Then they have one suspect instruction number, and can start peppering it with random strings to try to guess the "password" of that instruction. Imagine the fame they could gain, not just finding a hidden instruction but finding its password. Quote: I suppose it's possible that the instruction set could be 128 bits wide 32 bit processing was limited to 4 G of access space. This was a restrictive limit. 64 bit processing allows what to us is unlimited addressing space. Effectively unlimited, for now. "Over 18 quintillion" which certainly covers the hard disk capacity of your home network and your work network. But actually it's a bit limiting when considering the internet. IP-v6 has an address space of 128 bits.

Quote:

Going to 128 bit is technically difficult - i.e. not all 64 bit processors work correctly. there have been a lot of failed processors developed. but the main reason is that to do this would be fixing a problem that does not currently exist. It would be a huge expense for something that is just not needed. 32-bit  -  4,294,967,295 This is where the 4 G limit comes from. 64-bit - 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 This is the number we currently use 128-bit  - 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,455 We don't need this

It's a sensible upgrade for internet addresses. 64 bit isn't actually necessary yet, but the new domains are largely IP-v6, and if I was founding a website I would make sure it is registered in v4 AND v6.

Wasn't it a bummer for you, when hard disks got stuck at 4G? You could pay more for a faster disk, when all you wanted was a bigger disk.

Maybe it's a bloke thing. Bigger is always better than faster, when it comes to hard disks.
[/quote]


Quote:

when all you wanted was a bigger disk.

Disks were originally a lot bigger. Had one system with a 30 or 40 inch copper platter that sat in its own cabinet and it held something like 200 meg of storage.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 9:23pm:

I wont say the product but there was a time when Australia were introducing a new major telecommunications system. The Australian company involved were delayed in approval to release the new product because the government were not yet able to break into the systems encryption.

Did you know that the first iteration of the mobile phone system worldwide
was not allowed by Govts. because it was encrypted?
It wasn't allowed to be implemented for a long time later so
the companies could make sure that Govts could tap your phone to hear what you were saying.   :-[

Dnarever wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 9:54pm:

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 9:47pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 9:33pm: Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 9:08pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 8:53pm: Setanta wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 8:42pm: Software in the sense of what operating system you run or what programs you run on it are not the issue. It's the hardware code and what Microcode provides. That's correct  but we are talking about an unknown instruction set - well -  known only to the CPU designers and the NSA and their co-conspirators. I suppose it's possible that the instruction set could be 128 bits wide. But if so, it would slow the processor down to have to read 128 bits for every instruction (and bear in mind that instructions are sometimes passed from one part of the processor to the other.) Even assuming the other hardware passed such an instruction, the obvious action would be to cull the top 64 bits. But even assuming that 128 bit instructions somehow get to the processor (by a corrupted compiler) and are somehow processed to a cause a "hidden instruction" to be executed, this is still something that a hacker could detect. They basically just have to do <crazy instruction> <input> and see if they get something other than "illegal instruction" back. Do it over and over (perhaps while they take a much needed nap.) They do that 2^32 times, or even 2^64 times, for every possible instruction. Well maybe the "hidden instruction" requires a specific string or else it returns "illegal instruction." But remember that there is more than one hacker. A hacker may be curious enough to record the timing of every "illegal instruction" which comes back. Then they have one suspect instruction number, and can start peppering it with random strings to try to guess the "password" of that instruction. Imagine the fame they could gain, not just finding a hidden instruction but finding its password. Quote: I suppose it's possible that the instruction set could be 128 bits wide 32 bit processing was limited to 4 G of access space. This was a restrictive limit. 64 bit processing allows what to us is unlimited addressing space. Effectively unlimited, for now. "Over 18 quintillion" which certainly covers the hard disk capacity of your home network and your work network. But actually it's a bit limiting when considering the internet. IP-v6 has an address space of 128 bits. [quote] Going to 128 bit is technically difficult - i.e. not all 64 bit processors work correctly. there have been a lot of failed processors developed. but the main reason is that to do this would be fixing a problem that does not currently exist. It would be a huge expense for something that is just not needed. 32-bit  -  4,294,967,295 This is where the 4 G limit comes from. 64-bit - 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 This is the number we currently use 128-bit  - 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,455 We don't need this

It's a sensible upgrade for internet addresses. 64 bit isn't actually necessary yet, but the new domains are largely IP-v6, and if I was founding a website I would make sure it is registered in v4 AND v6.

Wasn't it a bummer for you, when hard disks got stuck at 4G? You could pay more for a faster disk, when all you wanted was a bigger disk.

Maybe it's a bloke thing. Bigger is always better than faster, when it comes to hard disks.
[/quote]

That 4G limit applied to Exchange 5.5 corporate mail servers. A mid sized company had it whole organisations email store limited to 4G. The work arounds were expensive and ugly.

These days companies can have individual mail users with 10G of email. Imagine when the whole company was sharing 4G.  OH and best of all when the 4G run out the email server would stop. Nobody would recieve or send any email.
[/quote]

4G (4 gigabytes) was a hard limit on media that an Intel/AMD could access from a hard disk. There were ways around it, but if your disk got corrupted it was bad news.

You could also split an 8G drive into two partitions, but it was only later that MS introduced "virtual drives" so so you see the two smaller drives as on larger one. Again though, it wasn't good if one of your drives got corrupted.

Linux of course was all over that. You could have "software RAID" spreading data across many drives: you could have fast but terribly insecure RAID-0, or slow and very secure RAID levels up to 6. If data security is a concern for you, everything but 0 is good, and you can still do them with multiple SSD's.

My previous computer had a hardware raid card, and four Seagate 500 GB drives in RAID-0. It was astoundingly better in the disk department, than any computer I had owned before. And I ran it for years. I have a single SSD and it's much faster than than before. I think the only reason you'd want a raid array now, is data security. You could have to equal sized SSD's, in RAID-1, it would be practically as fast as a single drive, but if either drive fails you're fully up to date. In fact your computer keeps working.

It's important to note that hardware raid (which your motherboard may provide) is a whole lot better than software raid (which burdens your processor.)

Bobby. wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 10:08pm:

[quote author=Jim_Puddle-Duck link=1729762491/23#23 date=1729769017]I wont say the product but there was a time when Australia were introducing a new major telecommunications system. The Australian company involved were delayed in approval to release the new product because the government were not yet able to break into the systems encryption.

Did you know that the first iteration of the mobile phone system worldwide
was not allowed by Govts. because it was encrypted?
It wasn't allowed to be implemented for a long time later so
the companies could make sure that Govts could tap your phone to hear what you were saying.   :-[/quote]

Didn't the Blackberry have encryption?

And even more insurgent, Blackberries could make calls to other nearby Blackberries without going through a tower?

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 10:31pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 10:08pm: [quote author=Jim_Puddle-Duck link=1729762491/23#23 date=1729769017]I wont say the product but there was a time when Australia were introducing a new major telecommunications system. The Australian company involved were delayed in approval to release the new product because the government were not yet able to break into the systems encryption. Did you know that the first iteration of the mobile phone system worldwide was not allowed by Govts. because it was encrypted? It wasn't allowed to be implemented for a long time later so the companies could make sure that Govts could tap your phone to hear what you were saying.   :-[/quote] Didn't the Blackberry have encryption? And even more insurgent, Blackberries could make calls to other nearby Blackberries without going through a tower?

I don't know but I'm sure it was eventually busted encryption.  :-[

Bobby. wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 10:47pm:

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 10:31pm: [quote author=bobbythebat1 link=1729762491/32#32 date=1729771711][quote author=Jim_Puddle-Duck link=1729762491/23#23 date=1729769017]I wont say the product but there was a time when Australia were introducing a new major telecommunications system. The Australian company involved were delayed in approval to release the new product because the government were not yet able to break into the systems encryption. Did you know that the first iteration of the mobile phone system worldwide was not allowed by Govts. because it was encrypted? It wasn't allowed to be implemented for a long time later so the companies could make sure that Govts could tap your phone to hear what you were saying.   :-[/quote] Didn't the Blackberry have encryption? And even more insurgent, Blackberries could make calls to other nearby Blackberries without going through a tower?

I don't know but I'm sure it was eventually busted encryption.  :-[/quote]

I've never been busted for anything.

I think it's mostly luck.

I was sharing some bongs on the balcony of my squat (Glebe Point Road, up the Children's Hospital end) when the cops walked in. I put the smoldering bong on my knee, and explained to them that the eviction order had only been served 4 days ago. According to the law, I had three more days to leave, and therefore the (2) cops were illegally on my premises. In my favor, that was actually the law. Against me, I was flagrantly in breach of the law (the bong) and our squat policy was never to close the front door.

Yeah, that's just good luck isn't it? Most cops would have busted me for possession and use. But I got a nice cop that day.

What is AC's fascination with "backdoors"? Is his computer backdoor always open?

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 30^th, 2024 at 8:09pm:

What is AC's fascination with "backdoors"? Is his computer backdoor always open?

Don't be so silly.

forgiven

namaste

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 10:31pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 10:08pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 9:23pm: I wont say the product but there was a time when Australia were introducing a new major telecommunications system. The Australian company involved were delayed in approval to release the new product because the government were not yet able to break into the systems encryption. Did you know that the first iteration of the mobile phone system worldwide was not allowed by Govts. because it was encrypted? It wasn't allowed to be implemented for a long time later so the companies could make sure that Govts could tap your phone to hear what you were saying.   :-[/quote] Didn't the Blackberry have encryption? And even more insurgent, Blackberries could make calls to other nearby Blackberries without going through a tower? [quote]Didn't the Blackberry have encryption?

Everything has encryption but the companies do not get approval to release the product till the government gets a copy of the keys.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 30^th, 2024 at 8:27pm:

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 10:31pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 10:08pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 9:23pm: I wont say the product but there was a time when Australia were introducing a new major telecommunications system. The Australian company involved were delayed in approval to release the new product because the government were not yet able to break into the systems encryption. Did you know that the first iteration of the mobile phone system worldwide was not allowed by Govts. because it was encrypted? It wasn't allowed to be implemented for a long time later so the companies could make sure that Govts could tap your phone to hear what you were saying.   :-[/quote] Didn't the Blackberry have encryption? And even more insurgent, Blackberries could make calls to other nearby Blackberries without going through a tower? [quote]Didn't the Blackberry have encryption? Everything has encryption but the companies do not get approval to release the product till the government gets a copy of the keys.

Ahh. How does that work with opensource?

Setanta wrote on Oct 30^th, 2024 at 8:33pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 30th, 2024 at 8:27pm: Everything has encryption but the companies do not get approval to release the product till the government gets a copy of the keys. Ahh. How does that work with opensource?

I think some companies are in trouble for releasing systems that have encryption
such as Telegram where it's end to end encrypted.
They get blamed if criminals use their system.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 30^th, 2024 at 8:36pm:

Setanta wrote on Oct 30th, 2024 at 8:33pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 30th, 2024 at 8:27pm: Everything has encryption but the companies do not get approval to release the product till the government gets a copy of the keys. Ahh. How does that work with opensource? I think some companies are in trouble for releasing systems that have encryption such as Telegram where it's end to end encrypted. They get blamed if criminals use their system.

Any decent messenging app is e2ee.

Setanta wrote on Oct 30^th, 2024 at 8:38pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 30th, 2024 at 8:36pm: Setanta wrote on Oct 30th, 2024 at 8:33pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 30th, 2024 at 8:27pm: Everything has encryption but the companies do not get approval to release the product till the government gets a copy of the keys. Ahh. How does that work with opensource? I think some companies are in trouble for releasing systems that have encryption such as Telegram where it's end to end encrypted. They get blamed if criminals use their system. Any decent messenging app is e2ee.

The Govts wanted some way to listen in.
I think they did in the end - I'm not sure.

Setanta wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 8:31pm:

Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 8:26pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 8:15pm: Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 8:09pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 7:53pm: Aurora Complexus wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 7:47pm: Where there is money, there are always "experts" offering to fix the problem. In fact this expert may have simply taken a few million from AMD, in exchange for his reputation. Or a few thousand, depending on what his reputation is worth. No - this is real - it's well known about. OK then, how do I access the "hidden instruction set" of my Intel processor. It's not particularly old (about 2 years) but I suppose there's a conspiracy of hackers and the government (diametrically opposed one would think) to conceal any "hidden instruction set demo" which might prove to me the existence of the hidden instruction set. A hidden instruction set is a rather big deal. Putting extra instructions which can only be accessed by particular programs using a particular compiler, would be wasted space in the part of the processor where space is time. You're hypothesizing lower performance, for ulterior motives, in a market where performance is a big deal. How many billions would it take, do you think, for Intel to risk its historical lead over AMD? Languages like C++ allow you to access the instruction set directly but it's not much use unless you know what that instruction does. The NSA knows - they forced Intel to put those instructions in. Another way is buy a system development kit for that CPU and tinker around with it. I can only speculate as to what it might do - perhaps when you use encryption it stores the 2 secret prime numbers somewhere which can then be sent off to the NSA to decode all your banking and other encrypted work? "The US government bought a backdoor" is something I can believe. Nobody else could afford it. But it's a basic of spycraft, that a backdoor exposed is a backdoor lost. Until it is common knowledge and there are work arounds (aka protections) the US government isn't giving the backdoor to Australian government. Also, don't hackers find these things within days or weeks? Don't the half dozen anti-virus brands, provide protections (for fear of their competitors.)? And there's always linux, as you mentioned. Do you think Microsoft are going to expose their customers to a backdoor, which Apple or Linux protect against? And I say again, why would Intel risk their market to AMD? Are we looking at the jewel of all conspiracy theories: "they're ALL in on it"? Software that runs on your computer, that's possible. Instructions in the CPU not so easy. You can decompile software and inspect it, step through it with a debugger. You can't do that with a CPU.

I think the word 'backdoor' is a misnomer.   In reality, its probably how the CPU is organized.  And when, certain strings of command are activated, it create a temporary error in the RAM, which create a corruption that can be otherwise exploited.  And if you already know the underlying architecture, then you will know which section of the corruption to exploit. 

tickleandrose wrote on Oct 31^st, 2024 at 5:00pm:

I think the word 'backdoor' is a misnomer.   In reality, its probably how the CPU is organized.  And when, certain strings of command are activated, it create a temporary error in the RAM, which create a corruption that can be otherwise exploited.  And if you already know the underlying architecture, then you will know which section of the corruption to exploit.

There is no corruption -
the CPU is following its instruction set -

the point is that the full instruction set is not published.

Intel CPUs have backdoors, it is WOKE  :o

tallowood wrote on Oct 31^st, 2024 at 5:14pm:

Intel CPUs have backdoors, it is WOKE  :o

And the public and Govts are being shafted by dishonest CPU manufacturers.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 24^th, 2024 at 7:34pm:

I read about this before -

I'm sure you've read lots of things about back doors, Bobbi.

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 31^st, 2024 at 5:35pm:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 7:34pm: I read about this before - I'm sure you've read lots of things about back doors, Bobbi.

Greggy ruining every thread with his homo talk.

Not that .....

Quote:

In an interesting story covered by the Australian Financial Review it is revealed that experts think the NSA has hardware level backdoors built into Intel and AMD processors. Steve Blank, recognised as one of Silicon Valleys leading experts, says that he would be extremely surprised if the American NSA does not have backdoors built into Intel and AMD chips. His reason is that the NSA finds “hacking” through backdoors significantly more simple than trying to crack encryption. For example trying to crack AES 256 bit encryption would require the power of 10 million suns to crack at the current TDP of processors. Steve Blank therefore claims that because cracking encryption is so infeasible the NSA uses hardware level backdoors instead. Steve Blank said that these suspicions arose when he saw the NSA could access Microsoft emails in their pre-encryption state and so he knew there was another way in.

https://www.eteknix.com/nsa-may-backdoors-built-intel-amd-processors/

tallowood wrote on Oct 31^st, 2024 at 6:42pm:

Quote: In an interesting story covered by the Australian Financial Review it is revealed that experts think the NSA has hardware level backdoors built into Intel and AMD processors. Steve Blank, recognised as one of Silicon Valleys leading experts, says that he would be extremely surprised if the American NSA does not have backdoors built into Intel and AMD chips. His reason is that the NSA finds “hacking” through backdoors significantly more simple than trying to crack encryption. For example trying to crack AES 256 bit encryption would require the power of 10 million suns to crack at the current TDP of processors. Steve Blank therefore claims that because cracking encryption is so infeasible the NSA uses hardware level backdoors instead. Steve Blank said that these suspicions arose when he saw the NSA could access Microsoft emails in their pre-encryption state and so he knew there was another way in. https://www.eteknix.com/nsa-may-backdoors-built-intel-amd-processors/

Yes and that was 11 years ago -

Intel and AMD are silent.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 31^st, 2024 at 5:48pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 31st, 2024 at 5:35pm: Bobby. wrote on Oct 24th, 2024 at 7:34pm: I read about this before - I'm sure you've read lots of things about back doors, Bobbi. Greggy ruining every thread with his homo talk. Not that .....

Bobbi ruining every thread with his backdoor talk.

Bobby. wrote on Oct 30^th, 2024 at 8:20pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 30th, 2024 at 8:09pm: What is AC's fascination with "backdoors"? Is his computer backdoor always open? Don't be so silly. forgiven namaste

Sorry, Sam...

I still like your Buddhism philosophy. You are very honest.

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 1^st, 2024 at 10:33am:

Bobby. wrote on Oct 30th, 2024 at 8:20pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Oct 30th, 2024 at 8:09pm: What is AC's fascination with "backdoors"? Is his computer backdoor always open? Don't be so silly. forgiven namaste Sorry, Sam... I still like your Buddhism philosophy. You are very honest.

forgiven

according to the divine plan

and so it is

namaste