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.

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



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

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


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 7:58pm:


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

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


"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:



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.

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


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.

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



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.

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



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?

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:

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




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.

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.

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


Quote:


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.

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



The video might tell you.

again.

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


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:


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:


Quote:


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:


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 9:54pm:


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.)

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



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

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

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


Quote:


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

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



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.

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



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

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



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

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

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


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

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



Greggy ruining every thread with his homo talk.

Not that .....

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



Yes and that was 11 years ago -

Intel and AMD are silent.

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


Sorry, Sam...

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