It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intel to introduce processor with remote kill switch

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jamiros
Well, being in the IT business the i5 and i7 processors already have a "kill switch" in them in case of robbery. If your laptop gets stolen you call Intel and the first time the computer is connected to the internet the CPU "locks" it's self. The only way to open it is by calling Intel again and asking for a re-activation.

All this I got straight from the vendor Intel.


who cares about that

they can replace the processor or take out hard drive and stuff and steal your data

nobody really cares about hardware, its all about the information

so, the better defense is to encrypt our data




posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   
come on hackers get a patch out there that can cancel this.
But I suppose it may not work on open source, especially if not using onboard network card. I'll try to find more details of it.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by kaleshchand
 


We have


“Our research shows how an attacker can compromise the integrity of a software loaded via an Intel TXT-based loader in a generic way. We have created a proof-of-concept code that demonstrates the successful attack against tboot — Intel's implementation of the trusted boot process for Xen and Linux. Our attack comprises two stages. The first stage requires an implementation flaw in a specific system software. The second stage of the attack is possible thanks to a certain design decision made in the current TXT release,” Rutkowska and Wojtczuk stated.


news.softpedia.com...

for starters.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Most of these functions on toshiba hardware that I have been trained in all use TPM or trusted platform module. Its pretty much an intel sanctioned backdoor thats been around since core duo in high end notebooks. Remote admin, virus scan, log viewing, etc.
This could so easily be done with other os software anyway it's not a huge worry. Worst one is encrypted CPU routines, can't see what big brother is even doing on your own box. NSA key etc all stems towards that.
edit on 21/12/10 by GhostR1der because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by aivlas
 


"How are they forcing you to upgrade your hardware all the time?"
each time a new operating system comes out for windows.
you have to up grade some thing.
ram graphics card or speed the CPU.
or get a new computer.
and the new games do this to.
I have playd a game demo of the first level.
but when the game came out you had to have more speed and ram?
so they are making you get up grades.
and on the chips in the up grades they can add whatever they like.
like the new CPU with 4 and moire cores.
what if they add a fifth core?
and that CPU is just for them to keep a eye on you.
as its hard ware. it can totally control what the other CPUs see.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by buddha
 


That's not them forcing you, that's just you buying stuff because you think you need it.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by kaleshchand
 


Sorry its impossible to patch this in the sense that you mean it, that thing is hard-coded INTO the CPU along with the instructions sets. Its not possible to just disable this by executing a software or patch on your machine... To be honest with you the only possible way this can be done requires technical competence, tools and time... beside the technical challenge it offers your better off throwing it into the garbage and/or go for AMD.. really...



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by _R4t_
 


3g and wireless jammers + no ethernet connection. No technical know how needed



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
This whole concept is beginning to remind me of how they purportedly encrypt unique ID into every printer to prevent counterfeiting.

Yes this smacks of the old frog staying in pot of water as the heat is turned up.

Granted technology cuts both ways since I love caller ID. Probably archaic to most of you, but not to those of us who grew up literally dialing (rotary) phones. I also recall my first TV with WIRED remote. OK, there goes my youthful facade.
edit on 21-12-2010 by kinda kurious because: reason given



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Until they release the chips and the options become clear crying wolf is silly.

Unless they are out, then I would like some links (sandy rivers is a codename) I need an upgrade.
edit on 21-12-2010 by aivlas because: (no reason given)





It seems that the Intel Anti-Theft announcement is creating a significant debate on The Net. This ISC post simply tried to catch your attention about new technologies and features we need to keep an eye on, and it didn't reflect this will be a feature for mass p0wn4g3. Trying to clarify this technology a little bit, Intel Anti-Theft seems to be associated to Intel vPro (TM) CPUs only and the associated chipsets, plus capabilities on the BIOS , firmware/software, and a capable 3G subscription. The kill switch can be reversed (enabling the computer back without physical damage) by providing proper authentication through a 3G heartbeat, a local passphrase or one-time token.


isc.sans.edu...

They are trying hard to control us OH NOES, let the fear flow

edit on 21-12-2010 by aivlas because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-12-2010 by aivlas because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by buddha
 


Primary the CPU doesn't (see) things it execute millions of logical operations following specific instructions set. Sniffer at CPU level would be pretty futile... Not only they risk being busted by some kid fresh out of MIT trying to carve himself a name in the business but it would cost them an arm in research/development...

Think outside the box... Why bother with this when you can go at the root and see all from there... The internet is like a giant three upside down... Go at the root and you see everything below thats happening in the branches... All they need to do is to put pressure on the main ISPs and tap the main internet providers/routers and you will see everything you need to see and even more... Hell they don't even need to put pressure on them... Promise them you will grant them loans/bailouts and you'll have most companies at your knees right there...



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by aivlas
 


AMD and you can do whatever you want


second line...



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Back in the early half of 2000's it was possible to remotley overclock the targets graphics processor (GPU), causing it to slowly overheat and burn out.

There was also a harder "hack" that allowed you to remotley wipe or "kill" the BIOS of certain systems (either AMI or Award, can't remember), rendering the mainboard useless.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
Back in the early half of 2000's it was possible to remotley overclock the targets graphics processor (GPU), causing it to slowly overheat and burn out.

There was also a harder "hack" that allowed you to remotley wipe or "kill" the BIOS of certain systems (either AMI or Award, can't remember), rendering the mainboard useless.


Indeed, that exploit modified the multiplier in the GPU and raised it beyond its normal operation level which would of require much better cooling to allow it to perform at this level. There is also BIOS level malwares however we're talking about a step below the BIOS here. Where talking about binary codes hard-coded directly "inside" the CPU you cannot get in there without physically tapping yourself onto it so you can re-flash it with a virgin copy of the set of instructions without the backdoor codes....

Now the reason why its impossible to do it from a software/patch level is because in order to "run" the patch the CPU is making the calculations for that very patch + OS your running... and while the CPU is in use you can't wipe out all its programming and then reprogram it because once its deprogrammed it becomes a brick... Its not going to know how to use the rest of the patch codes to update itself since it won't have any instructions left anymore to tell it how to calculate the codes and make the operations... In order to do this the CPU has to be stop completely then deprogrammed then reprogrammed then you can start the machine... Remember ANYTHING done on the computer can't be done without the CPU...

Also it was possible to mess with the GPU because it was making use of already existent features embedded into it... trying to add/remove something from its "firmware" if you will is a whole different game.




posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by _R4t_
 


Oh aye, I know, I was just throwing that in there as an example of remotley killing systems.

With this new system Intel is implementing though, would it not just be a case of blocking the port they will use to send the kill signal?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


It uses 3G, I should of saved that quote that said it would be the sys admins flipping the switch not intel

edit on 21-12-2010 by aivlas because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by _R4t_
 


Oh aye, I know, I was just throwing that in there as an example of remotley killing systems.

With this new system Intel is implementing though, would it not just be a case of blocking the port they will use to send the kill signal?


20$ with you they will use port 80 this way it force you to leave it open else you won't be able to browse to any pages... I'm sure that's that they'll do... That's what I would do... I'm not too sure how it'll work but I'm damn fkin temped to buy one and get it locked/unlocked while forcing it through a bridge and sniff the entire lock/unlock process just to see how it operates.

They have fired up my curiousness pretty bad lol
edit on 21-12-2010 by _R4t_ because: typo



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
atforums.mobi...


Exactly. I've been banging my head on my desk since I saw this story at Slashdot this afternoon. A non-technical journalist saw vPro/AMT on the Sandy Bridge spec sheet, didn't realize what it was for, and it's been spiraling ever since.


No doubt, is foolish.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by aivlas
 


I know what your talking about, but I think thats just referring to them using mobile broadband as a delivery mechanism if thats how you connect to the net.




The commands can be received through 3G signals, ethernet, or internet connections.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by _R4t_
 


if that was the case then it would be a matter of blocking the IP(s) used to send the signal



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join