# Remote ‘Kill Switch’ Added to Intel’s Newest Processor.



## MatTheCat (Dec 16, 2010)

Never heard about any of this in any of the pre release hype articles.

Something about Intel including a 'remote kill switch' with the up and coming Sandy Bridge CPU's.

If this is the case then I definitely will be switching to AMD come the release of Bulldozer.


----------



## sneekypeet (Dec 16, 2010)

I think this thread is playing with the same idea... retail sandy bridge random regulation


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 16, 2010)

For it to be disabled remotely the computer has to be connected in some way to a network, and I'm sure there are some pretty big hoops to jump through to disable it.

I'm guessing, as the artible mentioned, this is more for a laptop thing to disable the hardware if it is stolen.  It isn't like Intel is just going to start disabling processors left and right just because they want to.


----------



## Nitro-Max (Dec 16, 2010)

I can see it now lol 

WTF! i just hit standby on my tv remote and now my cpu is dissabled???


----------



## MatTheCat (Dec 16, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> It isn't like Intel is just going to start disabling processors left and right just because they want to.



No, but it gives them power t do so should they wish.

This is setting a dangerous precedent.

Fuck them. I am going to go for Bulldozer no matter what the benchmarks say. Sandy Brdige can GTF.


----------



## Bigjohn (Dec 16, 2010)

MatTheCat said:


> No, but it gives them power t do so should they wish.
> 
> This is setting a dangerous precedent.
> 
> Fuck them. I am going to go for Bulldozer no matter what the benchmarks say. Sandy Brdige can GTF.


The FCC and the government in general (not just the US government, mind you) want the power to shut shit down - and this gives them that.  They're already stealing domains without due process on "suspicions of piracy"...


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 16, 2010)

MatTheCat said:


> No, but it gives them power t do so should they wish.
> 
> This is setting a dangerous precedent.
> 
> Fuck them. I am going to go for Bulldozer no matter what the benchmarks say. Sandy Brdige can GTF.



Not really, they have to know some information about the hardware before they can send the kill signal, information that only the owner of the hardware would be able to provide.  You don't want it disabled, don't tell intel the info.


----------



## Bigjohn (Dec 16, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Not really, they have to know some information about the hardware before they can send the kill signal, information that only the owner of the hardware would be able to provide.  You don't want it disabled, don't tell intel the info.



Not even.
Device serial number is all they would need, and of course that the driver for the chipset in the OS was enabled to look for the kill bit.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Dec 16, 2010)

Bigjohn said:


> The FCC and the government in general (not just the US government, mind you) want the power to shut shit down - and this gives them that.  They're already stealing domains without due process on "suspicions of piracy"...



Thats the first thing that came to my mind. What real purpose does this serve? Did we even ask for this, do we really even need this?

Same goes for Facebook facial recognition. I just don't see why we need it, but I can see why they would like to implement it.


----------



## Nitro-Max (Dec 16, 2010)

Ive seen the usa going crazy over security just latley and over recent years, makes me wonder if all this wikileaks business is just another excuse for more internet controls taking away more online freedoms,
Whats to stop them logging all this information prior to sale only to push a button a couple of years down the line, people would think their cpu just died and pay out for more upgrades.

I do this anyway lol but its besides the point, Still buying a 2600k cant resist the temptation  .


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Dec 16, 2010)

I support this feature for users who like to remotely turn on and off the computer.  However, if other 3rd parties have this feature, and it is known to the public, I will simply not buy the processor, cause I am paranoid, as well as scared to death of the government.  

I understand that some modern computers do in fact have a kill switch already, such as shown when Israel flew in planes under the Iranian radars, only to have the radars not fire on them, and mysteriously not work.


----------



## timta2 (Dec 16, 2010)

> They're already stealing domains without due process on "suspicions of piracy"...



Please do tell us more. The only ones I've heard about are the ones selling pirated music and fake Prada handbags. And that was a lot more than "suspicions".

The COICA hasn't passed YET...
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3804


----------



## Bigjohn (Dec 16, 2010)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> I support this feature for users who like to remotely turn on and off the computer.  However, if other 3rd parties have this feature, and it is known to the public, I will simply not buy the processor, cause I am paranoid, as well as scared to death of the government.
> 
> I understand that some modern computers do in fact have a kill switch already, such as shown when Israel flew in planes under the Iranian radars, only to have the radars not fire on them, and mysteriously not work.


If they make it so that the driver is open sourced (a bad thing and a good thing - hackers could use it, for example, but companies could create a secured driver...) then it might be ok.  As it stands, I'd not buy it.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Dec 16, 2010)

Bigjohn said:


> If they make it so that the driver is open sourced (a bad thing and a good thing - hackers could use it, for example, but companies could create a secured driver...) then it might be ok.  As it stands, I'd not buy it.



If anyone gets access to the driver who is not the governments, we are screwed?  Why?  How about a ransom virus that shuts down your computer unless you send someone money?  Even if our governments get access we are in trouble, cause I am sure A WHOLE BUNCH of computers get shut down for piracy.


----------



## THRiLL KiLL (Dec 16, 2010)

is this the same shit intel did back in the day, where they embedded tracking into the processors? if history repeats its self. it will be killed before production.

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/04/35950


----------



## KainXS (Dec 16, 2010)

I can only see this being enabled on the xeon variants and other VPRO business versions as it has been for a while now, this isn't new, its been a business feature, not worth worrying about right now.


----------



## Steevo (Dec 16, 2010)

timta2 said:


> Please do tell us more. The only ones I've heard about are the ones selling pirated music and fake Prada handbags. And that was a lot more than "suspicions".
> 
> The COICA hasn't passed YET...
> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3804



wikileaks

Not illegal to publish, share, speach, freedom of expression, thought, ideas or otherwise by the first amendment in the US Constitution.


However the government put pressure on multiple financial institutions to hold up the money, to shut down the site, to arrest and detain, to label a terrorist and by some stange twist a traitor, of the US when not a citizen?


----------



## stevednmc (Dec 16, 2010)

Not a traitor, but they are talking espionage. The person that stole the info,however is an american at the pentagon, in the army and is a traitor.Assange has the right to print it, but the person who gave him the info should be prosecuted. And yes, this coincides quite nicely with the internet regulation they are wanting to pass. Problem though is this: the FCC is voting on Dec 21 amongst themselves whether they will regulate the internet, without a bill from congress, who previosly voted it down, and without permission from the courts, who already ruled they could not do it. No matter what, they are gonna regulate the internet, whether we like it or not. They are simply going to deem themselves as having the power to do so, just like the EPA has deemed themselves to have the power to decide what gasses are harmful to the environment, with no oversight. Sorry a bit off topic..


----------



## hellrazor (Dec 16, 2010)

Makes me happy I've been using AMD for a while.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Dec 16, 2010)

Intel is a big name very popular. Most people who don't know about computers probably have heard the name Intel versus AMD. Its not a big surprise intel would do this first.


----------



## timta2 (Dec 16, 2010)

> wikileaks



Yeah that's one, and it's really debatable if that counts. It's actually a different topic.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 16, 2010)

Oh, it's like OnStar for computers (they can remotely turn off a stolen car and prevent it from starting). :/


----------



## <<Onafets>> (Dec 16, 2010)

Isn't this going to be a big security risk if someone cracks the MS network, which has happened on multiple occasions.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Dec 16, 2010)

hellrazor said:


> Makes me happy I've been using AMD for a while.



AMD does the same thing, don't think for a second they don't!


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Dec 16, 2010)

THRiLL KiLL said:


> is this the same shit intel did back in the day, where they embedded tracking into the processors? if history repeats its self. it will be killed before production.
> 
> http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/04/35950



I'd imagine production is well underway now. Doesn't it launch Q1? I doubt they'd scrap a few million procs.


----------



## MohawkAngel (Dec 16, 2010)

It's not new. Far Far long time ago the old intel had each one a serial number to recognize them over internet and used for transactions. But after people complained for privacy they stopped using this feature. My Celeron 1.2 still have it and i remember that even pentium 667 had it.


----------



## Frizz (Dec 16, 2010)

No matter what they say it's intended for, in the end it is just another form of control. I initially planned to move to Bulldozer anyways.

A "Remote Kill Switch" and a "Clock Limiter" that comes with the CPU you've spent hard earned money for, the idea just really sucks to me, so this is the last straw for me. Although my current i7 CPU is definitely worth every cent I've worked for so I don't know why they just couldn't keep things as they are


----------



## <<Onafets>> (Dec 16, 2010)

I guess they'll figure out the hard way when people move to bulldozers to shovel sandy bridges out of the way...Get it! That was a PUN!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 16, 2010)

Remember, Google (and other search providers) has an unbelivable amount on of data on virtually everyone that uses the Internet.  The reason why they keep that information safe and secure is so that they don't alienate their customers (everyone who uses their software).

Intel is going to behave the same way with this.  If it isn't the owner of it calling it in, it should take nothing short of a court order for Intel to do it for anyone else.  Most likely, the feature will be completely disabled unless you register your processor with Intel (the software aspect of it) much like OnStar is useless without first registering your VIN with OnStar.


Still, I could see that technology being very useful on a $40,000 stolen vehicle moving at 80+ MPH on the highway with five cops in pursuit but I can't really see that being useful on a $1000 laptop that typically doesn't pose any serious threat to anyone.  As such, the "fear" comes into play when Uncle Sam twists what "threat" means and tries to pressure Intel into killing some poor hacker's computer.  The sad thing is that such behavior isn't a stretch of the imagination.  My hope is that Intel would fight tooth and nail to protect their customers from governmental oppression.


----------



## Yukikaze (Dec 16, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Still, I could see that technology being very useful on a $40,000 stolen vehicle moving at 80+ MPH on the highway with five cops in pursuit but I can't really see that being useful on a $1000 laptop that typically doesn't pose any serious threat to anyone.



The whole concept of this is not aimed for controlling people (although it could definitely be used for that) but rather for disabling stoled corporate property. Our laptops at work already have a similar remote disable ability in their chipsets somewhere - It is nothing new. Intel's main customers are large OEMs, and they are probably the ones who requested in on behalf of their large corporate customers. This thing needs to be enabled from the machine itself, and if it is not enabled, it will not function.


----------



## motasim (Dec 16, 2010)

... Sandy Bridge CPUs are made in occupied Palestine (aka Israel), right? Could the Zionists have something to do with it?  ... it seems like one of their ideas in their continuous efforts to control the world ... they already control most of the world's media, so why stop there?  ...


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Dec 16, 2010)

I think we should avoid runaway diarrhea of the mind here. That's how you get most conspiracy theories and ancient alien programs on the history channel. Yukikaze's explanation makes sense and has the plus of not being insane.


----------



## Tatty_One (Dec 16, 2010)

stevednmc said:


> Not a traitor, but they are talking espionage. The person that stole the info,however is an american at the pentagon, in the army and is a traitor.Assange has the right to print it, but the person who gave him the info should be prosecuted. And yes, this coincides quite nicely with the internet regulation they are wanting to pass. Problem though is this: the FCC is voting on Dec 21 amongst themselves whether they will regulate the internet, without a bill from congress, who previosly voted it down, and without permission from the courts, who already ruled they could not do it. *No matter what, they are gonna regulate the internet, whether we like it or not. They are simply going to deem themselves as having the power to do so*, just like the EPA has deemed themselves to have the power to decide what gasses are harmful to the environment, with no oversight. Sorry a bit off topic..



So the US is trying to become the new China.... the very country the Western World has been criticising for the past 30 years for their Human rights record


----------



## W1zzard (Dec 16, 2010)

please dont tell me anyone who read the original article assumed "can be remotely disabled via 3g" means that the cpu has a little cellphone chip inside that is always on and is just waiting for "kill" input

also it seems this feature is for a special processor called "core vpro" that you probably have to pay extra for


----------



## motasim (Dec 16, 2010)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> I think we should avoid runaway diarrhea of the mind here. That's how you get most conspiracy theories and ancient alien programs on the history channel. Yukikaze's explanation makes sense and has the plus of not being insane.



... I was clearly joking, and I'm surprised that you didn't get it, was it so hard to understand?  Anyway; for the second part; the Zionists control over world media is a fact and not fiction, and definitely not a part of any conspiracy theory. If you are interested I can refer you to some enlightening references   ...

PS ... why were you offended? using terms like "diarrhea of the mind" and "not being insane" is uncalled for ... please keep the discussion within the limits of decency ...


----------



## fusionblu (Dec 16, 2010)

W1zzard said:


> please dont tell me anyone who read the original article assumed "can be remotely disabled via 3g" means that the cpu has a little cellphone chip inside that is always on and is just waiting for "kill" input
> 
> also it seems this feature is for a special processor called "core vpro" that you probably have to pay extra for



I heard of the vpro series of the Intel Processors too, their main purpose though is to be disabled in the event that the system it is a part of, such as a laptop, is stolen so that the system it is a part of cannot be accessed. Also with the cell phone chip you would find that it would mean that the processor can be traced without the need of the internet which does traces through the use of IP addresses, not a bad way to counter proxies and those hiding behind them.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Dec 16, 2010)

motasim said:


> ... I was clearly joking, and I'm surprised that you didn't get it, was it so hard to understand?  Anyway; for the second part; the Zionists control over world media is a fact and not fiction, and definitely not a part of any conspiracy theory. If you are interested I can refer you to some enlightening references   ...
> 
> PS ... why were you offended? using terms like "diarrhea of the mind" and "not being insane" is uncalled for ... please keep the discussion within the limits of decency ...



And I'm surprised you didn’t realize it was a general statement, as there was no @ and plenty of conspiracy crap was mentioned before your post. As for the joke, how could someone know you're not serious when you're seriously going on about zionists. The media is naturally controlled by the wealthy, the religious label they’re stuck with at birth is irrelevant as most are non-practicing. They align their religious views with whatever will get them the most reader/viewership to maintain that wealth, regardless of their personal beliefs. Or at least that’s how it works in the states. Now when someone brings some random polarizing off topic crap into a thread you can always expect me to respond negatively. Hot button issues should simply never be mentioned here unless directly relating to tech.


----------



## MatTheCat (Dec 16, 2010)

<<Onafets>> said:


> I guess they'll figure out the hard way when people move to bulldozers to shovel sandy bridges out of the way...Get it! That was a PUN!



Perhaps the two CPU's are then very aptly named.

My mind was made up for quite some time to get a 2600K the very minute I could get my hands on one. But now, bulldozer all the way (Unless I hear something similar about AMD).

oops...erm..what Wizzard and Yakiyuze said.

But I will keep my eyes peeled to see if the remote kill switch is a default feature on the Sandy Bridge chips or not. The article seems to suggest or at least states nothing to suggest that it isn't.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 16, 2010)

Bigjohn said:


> Not even.
> Device serial number is all they would need, and of course that the driver for the chipset in the OS was enabled to look for the kill bit.



They would also have to know where to send the kill bit.  If it is over a 3G network, the machine obivously has to have a 3G reciever, and they have to know the IP for the 3G reciever given by the network provider or the MAC address.

If they are doing it over wireless or LAN connection again they have to know MAC address or IP of the interface card to send the signal to.

The processor by itself isn't smart enough to constantly be monitoring the airwaves for the kill command, it has to be specifically sent to the machine.

It has nothing to do with the driver for the chipset in the OS being enabled to look for anything. Read the article again, the kill switch can be activated even why the OS isn't running.  Meaning it can be activate when sitting at the BIOS screen, or when booted off a bootable CD to bypass the original OS.



W1zzard said:


> please dont tell me anyone who read the original article assumed "can be remotely disabled via 3g" means that the cpu has a little cellphone chip inside that is always on and is just waiting for "kill" input
> 
> also it seems this feature is for a special processor called "core vpro" that you probably have to pay extra for




I think that is exactly what the "AMD is the way to go because of this" people are assuming.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Dec 16, 2010)

The only people this seems good for is those who have extremely private data and don't want anyone to see whats on their HDD/SSD. 

Otherwise its completely moot. If someone steals your laptop and you turn it off, they are just going to steal another one.


----------



## motasim (Dec 16, 2010)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> And I'm surprised you didn’t realize it was a general statement, as there was no @ and plenty of conspiracy crap was mentioned before your post.



Sorry, I thought that you were replying to me since it was sent directly after my post, my mistake.



LAN_deRf_HA said:


> As for the joke, how could someone know you're not serious when you're seriously going on about zionists.



The big grin should have given me away there!



LAN_deRf_HA said:


> The media is naturally controlled by the wealthy, the religious label they’re stuck with at birth is irrelevant as most are non-practicing. They align their religious views with whatever will get them the most reader/viewership to maintain that wealth, regardless of their personal beliefs. Or at least that’s how it works in the states.



Not all Jews are Zionists, in fact only a few are, and there are some non-Jew Zionists as well. Zionism has nothing to do with religion, it's only about power and influence, although it uses religion often to facilitate achieving certain objectives.



LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Now when someone brings some random polarizing off topic crap into a thread you can always expect me to respond negatively. Hot button issues should simply never be mentioned here unless directly relating to tech.



In this point you are right; one should not bring in controversial political topics to a tech forum, it just doesn't fit. Then again, you are not a moderator, so don't self-appoint your self as one.


----------



## Thatguy (Dec 16, 2010)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> I support this feature for users who like to remotely turn on and off the computer.  However, if other 3rd parties have this feature, and it is known to the public, I will simply not buy the processor, cause I am paranoid, as well as scared to death of the government.
> 
> I understand that some modern computers do in fact have a kill switch already, such as shown when Israel flew in planes under the Iranian radars, only to have the radars not fire on them, and mysteriously not work.



    anyone who would leave their computer setup for such things is a absolute fucking fool.


----------



## DrPepper (Dec 16, 2010)

Yeah I'm sure intel has nothing better to do than disable their customers CPU's for lols and lose billions. Get a grip people, there is obviously a demand and a reasonable explanation for it.


----------



## W1zzard (Dec 16, 2010)

i remember seeing a presentation that "security in case of loss/theft" is the 2nd most requested feature for mobile  users, like 60%


----------



## cadaveca (Dec 16, 2010)

Yeah...lost a phone or laptop with sensitive info? No problem.

However, real security requires all hardware have some sort of function like this..I suppose a TPM module might be the second part of it.

I understand why they'd so this, and how it's useful, but that doesn't mean I like it.


----------



## MatTheCat (Dec 16, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> Yeah I'm sure intel has nothing better to do than disable their customers CPU's for lols and lose billions. Get a grip people, there is obviously a demand and a reasonable explanation for it.



No.

They are not going to to do that as that would be suicidal. But the implementation of this technology is definitely a step further towards a situation where censorship by remote CPU locking is possible. 

I for one don't want to live in a world like the world that is slowly developing around us and oppose any incremental measures that serve towards the creation of a tightly controlled and suppresed global population.

This is one of them.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Dec 16, 2010)

Holy shit people, take off the tinfoil hats.


----------



## MohawkAngel (Dec 16, 2010)

Conspiracy going on! Intel and Santa Claus working hand in hand to kill random computers to make more sales! They will control what you buy over the net to share it with publicist and make you expense!!! Intel make money, Santas make money with transport and big corporations makes moneys by selling their products....Damns thats one of a hell conspiracy going there !!!!


----------



## MatTheCat (Dec 16, 2010)

MohawkAngel said:


> Conspiracy going on! Intel and Santa Claus working hand in hand to kill random computers to make more sales! They will control what you buy over the net to share it with publicist and make you expense!!! Intel make money, Santas make money with transport and big corporations makes moneys by selling their products....Damns thats one of a hell conspiracy going there !!!!



Yeah yeah. Whilst the creeping confiscation and infringment of basic freedoms spreads, lets all just laugh at people who dare to notice the changes that are going on.

I will no doubt see you and all the other ignorant asses in the Happy Work Camp for ignorant stupid proles in 20-30 years time.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Dec 16, 2010)

MatTheCat said:


> Yeah yeah. Whilst the creeping confiscation and infringment of basic freedoms spreads, lets all just laugh at people who dare to notice the changes that are going on.
> 
> I will no doubt see you and all the other ignorant asses in the Happy Work Camp for ignorant stupid proles in 20-30 years time.


----------



## motasim (Dec 16, 2010)

MohawkAngel said:


> Conspiracy going on! Intel and Santa Claus working hand in hand to kill random computers to make more sales! They will control what you buy over the net to share it with publicist and make you expense!!! Intel make money, Santas make money with transport and big corporations makes moneys by selling their products....Damns thats one of a hell conspiracy going there !!!!



... NO NO , YOU DON'T GET IT !!!!! ... Santa IS the kill switch  ...


----------



## MatTheCat (Dec 16, 2010)

ShiBDiB said:


> http://www.philzimmermann.com/images/TinFoilHatArea.jpg



Just cos u live in the town where ur own intelligence agency murdered 3500 of its own citizens and got ya all to run around blaming a bunch of illiterate rag-heads in some far off strategically important country on the Russian/Chinese borders.

Tard.


----------



## Batou1986 (Dec 16, 2010)

MatTheCat said:


> Just cos u live in the town where ur own intelligence agency murdered 3500 of its own citizens and got ya all to run around blaming a bunch of illiterate rag-heads in some far of strategically important country on the Russian/Chinese borders.
> 
> Tard.



This forum is about tech lets try to keep it on topic and civil please.


----------



## MatTheCat (Dec 16, 2010)

Batou1986 said:


> This forum is about tech lets try to keep it on topic and civil please.



Tell that to Mr Tin Foil hat man then.


----------



## Batou1986 (Dec 16, 2010)

Im saying that to everyone im sick of seeing these threads going off on some wild tangent.
Secondly mr tin foil hat didn't personally insult someone and an entire culture with his post. 

That's why you where quoted in my comment.


----------



## Bigjohn (Dec 16, 2010)

ummm, guys?
Any technology is subject to potential abuse.  If you trust this sort of power in the hands of the government, then so be it.  When you cease to fear and challenge the government, you become their willing servant.... many slaves are happy just as things are, because it's too hard to conceive of anything else...


----------



## ShiBDiB (Dec 16, 2010)

MatTheCat said:


> Just cos u live in the town where ur own intelligence agency murdered 3500 of its own citizens and got ya all to run around blaming a bunch of illiterate rag-heads in some far off strategically important country on the Russian/Chinese borders.
> 
> Tard.



Because the twin towers were in clifton park? you know ny is a pretty big state...

Ya.. but im the tard.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 17, 2010)

MatTheCat said:


> Yeah yeah. Whilst the creeping confiscation and infringment of basic freedoms spreads, lets all just laugh at people who dare to notice the changes that are going on.
> 
> I will no doubt see you and all the other ignorant asses in the Happy Work Camp for ignorant stupid proles in 20-30 years time.



I hadn't realized a private company implementing security measures in their private products that people have the choice to purchase or not purchase was considered an infringment of basic freedoms.

Care to explain how that makes sense?


----------



## remixedcat (Dec 17, 2010)

AphexDreamer said:


> Intel is a big name very popular. Most people who don't know about computers probably have heard the name Intel versus AMD. Its not a big surprise intel would do this first.



scary thing---> server market.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 17, 2010)

So if intel kills my cpu can I rma it for a new one?


----------



## MatTheCat (Dec 17, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> I hadn't realized a private company implementing security measures in their private products that people have the choice to purchase or not purchase was considered an infringment of basic freedoms.
> 
> Care to explain how that makes sense?



Because that PRIVATE company is controlled and owned by individuals with PRIVATE interests who in turn are politically and economically subject to even more nastier and powerful individuals with even more PRIVATE interests.

Also modern lifestyle is becoming increasingly technocentric which means we all rely on only two companies to deliver the........

...wait a minute...are u 10 years old or something?

......In the of chance that u actually went to school and did a little bit of economics.....

.........haven't you ever read about the dangers of Monopolies and how they are very bad thing for everyone (except the monopolisers)?



cdawall said:


> So if intel kills my cpu can I rma it for a new one?



No, if Intel kills ur CPU next stop for you will be Quantanamo Bay to be politically corrected for your bootlegging ways and where you will learn to appreciate how company executives are struggling to pay for their third holiday homes due to evil dishonest plebecites not being willing to pay (through the nose) for many software apps and games.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Dec 17, 2010)

I stopped listening to mat after he began linking everything to conspiracy theories..

So when I got my cat scan today did the government actually use that machine to steal my cell phone contacts?


----------



## DrPepper (Dec 17, 2010)

MatTheCat said:


> Because that PRIVATE company is controlled and owned by individuals with PRIVATE interests who in turn are politically and economically subject to even more nastier and powerful individuals with even more PRIVATE interests.
> 
> Also modern lifestyle is becoming increasingly technocentric which means we all rely on only two companies to deliver the........
> 
> ...



Too much of the ganja imo. See the thing is this isn't a monopolistic thing (btw there is more than 2 CPU manufacturers) nor is it a conspiracy to turn everyone's pc's off and control the world. It's actually what some customers want, to be able to de-activate their laptop if it's lost or stolen. I don't think Intel will send its customers to Guantanamo bay because they want another cpu lol absolutely rediculous.

Now lets get back on topic. Who actually would like the ability to disable their laptop or phone if it was stolen ?


----------



## Thatguy (Dec 17, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> Yeah...lost a phone or laptop with sensitive info? No problem.
> 
> However, real security requires all hardware have some sort of function like this..I suppose a TPM module might be the second part of it.
> 
> I understand why they'd so this, and how it's useful, but that doesn't mean I like it.



   Truecrypt or similar harddrive encryption will solve that problem. Unless they add a new HDD anything on the hdd will be useless without the key.


----------



## sneekypeet (Dec 17, 2010)

WARNING: Post on topic or I will just close the thread


----------



## ShiBDiB (Dec 17, 2010)

i dont even remember what the topic is........

o ya.. incase anyone missed it, wizz pointed out this is only on special models.. so the home user doesnt have to worry about the government shutting off their computer..


the end


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Dec 17, 2010)

every intel processor release i always hear some fuckery, it ends up being just that ... fuckery ....


----------



## overclocker (Dec 17, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> Now lets get back on topic. Who actually would like the ability to disable their laptop or phone if it was stolen ?



What about the second owner of the computer? can the first owner kill his cpu b/c he didnt like the guy ?


----------



## DrPepper (Dec 17, 2010)

overclocker said:


> What about the second owner of the computer? can the first owner kill his cpu b/c he didnt like the guy ?



Quite possible but I imagine since this is only only selected CPU's they are unlikely to ever be resold.


----------



## cdawall (Dec 17, 2010)

MatTheCat said:


> No, if Intel kills ur CPU next stop for you will be Quantanamo Bay to be politically corrected for your bootlegging ways and where you will learn to appreciate how company executives are struggling to pay for their third holiday homes due to evil dishonest plebecites not being willing to pay (through the nose) for many software apps and games.



I won't go to the bay for downloading music nor will intel shut my cpu off...this is getting blown out of proportion. Like w1z said this will probably be available on certain chips as a special tech called vpro.


----------



## MohawkAngel (Dec 17, 2010)

MatTheCat said:


> Yeah yeah. Whilst the creeping confiscation and infringment of basic freedoms spreads, lets all just laugh at people who dare to notice the changes that are going on.
> 
> I will no doubt see you and all the other ignorant asses in the Happy Work Camp for ignorant stupid proles in 20-30 years time.



Won't happen i'm AMD fan since many years now 

Oh and btw Tinfoil get more magnetic fields like if you put tin foil in the microwave...I'm getting signals from UFO's outside solar system....and by signals sent to my head they told me they dont like you!


----------



## MohawkAngel (Dec 17, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> Too much of the ganja imo. See the thing is this isn't a monopolistic thing (btw there is more than 2 CPU manufacturers) nor is it a conspiracy to turn everyone's pc's off and control the world. It's actually what some customers want, to be able to de-activate their laptop if it's lost or stolen. I don't think Intel will send its customers to Guantanamo bay because they want another cpu lol absolutely rediculous.
> 
> Now lets get back on topic. Who actually would like the ability to disable their laptop or phone if it was stolen ?



Personnaly my samsung phone have a device in it that could be used as a GPS to trace it. I can disable or not but its used for some applications.and if you read between the lines to track you down. Trakc you down where you are if you commeted a crime and police chase you or if something happened to you and police must act real quick. Example: Your daughter have been kidnaped but her phone git that GPS function and shes still having it in the purse that guys hopefully kept in the car. 

Ok it seems science fiction but in that case i would like to be able to track down those mother fuckers !


----------



## Yukikaze (Dec 17, 2010)

People. The "kill" switch is only active if it is enabled FROM THE MACHINE ITSELF. This is usually done by enabling the remote manageability technology on the machine. This is something your company's IT department does (typically this is done in the BIOS in a section protected by other security features). If you buy a laptop with this ability in it - You are your own IT department. You dislike this ability or mistrust someone (government, zionists, terrorists, idiots, smart people, Intel, AMD, Santa or the pink unicorn) to activate it - don't use it. Disable it, and nobody will be able to do anything to your laptop even if your neighbors cat steals it and flies off to Mars with it.

Capice?

And lay off the conspi-juice.


----------



## JF-AMD (Dec 17, 2010)

PVTCaboose1337 said:


> AMD does the same thing, don't think for a second they don't!



Source?


----------



## MatTheCat (Dec 17, 2010)

Yukikaze said:


> People. The "kill" switch is only active if it is enabled FROM THE MACHINE ITSELF. This is usually done by enabling the remote manageability technology on the machine. This is something your company's IT department does (typically this is done in the BIOS in a section protected by other security features). If you buy a laptop with this ability in it - You are your own IT department. You dislike this ability or mistrust someone (government, zionists, terrorists, idiots, smart people, Intel, AMD, Santa or the pink unicorn) to activate it - don't use it. Disable it, and nobody will be able to do anything to your laptop even if your neighbors cat steals it and flies off to Mars with it.
> 
> Capice?
> 
> And lay off the conspi-juice.



Where have you read this will be an optional feature which can be turned off or on?


----------



## Tatty_One (Dec 17, 2010)

MatTheCat said:


> Where have you read this will be an optional feature which can be turned off or on?



In essence the Intel utility to do this is called "Anti theft utility V3.0" and forms part of VPro and therefore exists already, it would appear that some Mobile Sandies will get the hardware built in to offer greater levels of Security management, it is actually software controlled from the looks of things, having just read up on some of it, the link below kind of states that the software controls the "state"..... any of us can only guess that if you don't have the software installed.... you don't get the facility, or if you have it installed the link suggests you can disable.... I dunno.

http://communities.intel.com/docs/DOC-4463

here is a bit more info on the subject for anyone interested and is actually quite useful..........

http://download.intel.com/it/pdf/Evaluating_Intel_Anti-Theft_Technology.pdf


----------



## francis511 (Dec 17, 2010)

Why do they actually NEED it ?


----------



## cdawall (Dec 17, 2010)

JF-AMD said:


> Source?



Amd doesn't do that they just show up at your house in a dark suv. For some reason they have a folder with my name on it


----------



## Tatty_One (Dec 17, 2010)

francis511 said:


> Why do they actually NEED it ?



Companies "Need it" and the technology has been researched and developed at the customers request, each year in the USA alone, lost and stolen laptops cost Billons of dollars, not just in the value of the lost hardware, but the costly measures companies have to put into place to negate the effects of information getting into competitiors or wikileaks hands!

From what I have read today, this whole thing is software driven, forget about the *Mobile* CPU, the end user HAS to buy VPro and install it and register the level of support they want from Intel, if as part of VPro (which has many security/management apps embedded), they select this feature then AT THE LICENSEE's REQUEST ( a phone call to the Intel centre) Intel can then send a "Kill Pill" to disable the product.

Well thats the way I have read it, I might be wrong, I certainly am no expert!


----------



## hat (Dec 17, 2010)

This makes no sense to me. *Disabling a CPU will not protect the contents of the hard drive. It's very easy for any 12 year old to take a hard drive out of a machine and put it an another and huff your files that way.*

So, the only benefit I see here is protecting your laptop from computer illiterate computer thieves.


----------



## Tatty_One (Dec 17, 2010)

hat said:


> This makes no sense to me. *Disabling a CPU will not protect the contents of the hard drive. It's very easy for any 12 year old to take a hard drive out of a machine and put it an another and huff your files that way.*
> 
> So, the only benefit I see here is protecting your laptop from computer illiterate computer thieves.



Lol, thats only one feature, I concentrated on that feature because its the topic of the thread, the "embedded apps" i refered to includes "on disk encryption"


----------



## hat (Dec 17, 2010)

So if someone's laptop gets stolen, they can call Intel and have tham magically encrypt their hard drive for them?

As far as I know, this is about Intel remotely shutting down processors, not handling everyone's encryption too. What all is there to this?


----------



## Thatguy (Dec 17, 2010)

JF-AMD said:


> Source?



   Hello John.

  what sharp ears you have.


----------



## JF-AMD (Dec 17, 2010)

I don't start many threads but I try to make sure that people aren't posting things that aren't true.


----------



## Thatguy (Dec 17, 2010)

JF-AMD said:


> I don't start many threads but I try to make sure that people aren't posting things that aren't true.



   I understand that, its amazing you saw this however. I enjoyed your posts on Anandtech. I like your style.


----------



## cadaveca (Dec 17, 2010)

So when will you(is in AMD) start? This is totally neccesary, right?




On a more serious note...at least SKYNET won't be able to take over the world now. Killswitch FTMFW.


----------



## Yukikaze (Dec 17, 2010)

hat said:


> This makes no sense to me. *Disabling a CPU will not protect the contents of the hard drive. It's very easy for any 12 year old to take a hard drive out of a machine and put it an another and huff your files that way.*
> 
> So, the only benefit I see here is protecting your laptop from computer illiterate computer thieves.



The HDD is encrypted as an additional measure. The reason this makes sense is that a thief who steals a laptop and is unable to do anything with it because it is a paperweight and cannot be sold for any gain will not steal another. If a thief knows that stealing such a laptop leads to stealing a paperweight, he won't do it.


----------



## JF-AMD (Dec 17, 2010)

I am not aware of any of this technology on our side. But I only work in server.  To me, personally, this seems like an opportunity for a problem.


----------



## hat (Dec 17, 2010)

Yukikaze said:


> The HDD is encrypted as an additional measure. The reason this makes sense is that a thief who steals a laptop and is unable to do anything with it because it is a paperweight and cannot be sold for any gain will not steal another. If a thief knows that stealing such a laptop leads to stealing a paperweight, he won't do it.



I didn't see anything in the article about Intel doing data encryption...

Even with a disabled cpu, there's lots of stuff in the laptop worth something... like... everything but the cpu


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Dec 17, 2010)

There are "kill switches" in a lot of military hardware.  There are "kill switches" in shareware and some commercial licensed software.

Why not have CPU's on lease? Pay up or turn off. Now *I dont like that business model*, but it is a legitimate one, and might actually be attractive to some businesses that currently have to purchase expensive hardware which sits on the balance sheet. NOW, you juts pay a rent, no financing necessary, no leasing companies with their fat margins, better tax management. Makes sense.

Alternatively, Mr Obama wants an "internet kill switch".  Well, that is kind of hard. But if one of your American companies has a monopoly on CPUs then you can have a "world kill switch" with such a system.

It's currently being trialled as a kill switch.  Would be much worse if the next get required a "heatbeat"


----------



## hat (Dec 17, 2010)

Completely Bonkers said:


> Why not have CPU's on lease? Pay up or turn off. Now *I dont like that business model*, but it is a legitimate one, and might actually be attractive to some businesses that currently have to purchase expensive hardware which sits on the balance sheet. NOW, you juts pay a rent, no financing necessary, no leasing companies with their fat margins, better tax management. Makes sense.



I don't see that saving money. Everyone I know who's not an enthusiast has S478 era hardware. My high school, which I graduated from this year, had tons of Socket 462, Socket 478, and some older Socket 775 P4 systems. Imagine paying rent on those year after year... lots of wasted money.



Completely Bonkers said:


> Alternatively, Mr Obama wants an "internet kill switch".  Well, that is kind of hard. But if one of your American companies has a monopoly on CPUs then you can have a "world kill switch" with such a system.



That's a whole nother can of worms...


----------



## cadaveca (Dec 17, 2010)

JF-AMD said:


> I am not aware of any of this technology on our side. But I only work in server.  To me, personally, this seems like an opportunity for a problem.



No doubt, but i tihnk it might be possible to pull off. Would definately add an interesting slant to industrial espionage, as well as the system security front.

We could almost consider a recent antivirus problem leading to no boots as a software killswitch...how negatively do you think that impacted the party in question? And would the effect the hardware world not be exponential?

It's like an ankle tracking bracelet with a taser built in. Both monitor your every move, and if ya go to the wrong places...ZAP!!!

Piracy could die.


----------



## Mike0409 (Dec 17, 2010)

I think you will see this mainly on business class laptop's and not for home PC's.  

Also for Intel to nuke your processor you would have to give consent to let Intel monitor your hardware at some level. It would have to be marked and noted somewhere...


Navigating and pirating software? This would be monitored by your ISP and not by the process's of your CPU..for them to monitor this without the ISP's consent would be a major privacy invasion with the TOA that you have with your ISP.

For hackers to be able to gain access to Intel's records and start nuking processors?  I havn't heard of OnStar getting hacked and having car's turn off randomly...


----------



## cadaveca (Dec 17, 2010)

Mike0409 said:


> Navigating and pirating software? This would be monitored by your ISP and not by the process's of your CPU..for them to monitor this without the ISP's consent would be a major privacy invasion with the TOA that you have with your ISP.



Maybe, however, the way the legal system works here in Canada, any contract terms that conflict with law are null and void. The law supercedes any contract. This goes for all contracts.

And law can be changed easily. There are roadblocks to any success.


----------



## Mike0409 (Dec 17, 2010)

cadaveca said:


> Maybe, however, the way the legal system works here in Canada, any contract terms that conflict with law are null and void. The law supercedes any contract. This goes for all contracts.
> 
> And law can be changed easily. There are roadblocks to any success.



You may be correct, but there are also loop holes in laws that could be used.

I still don't see this tech as a standard for these chips.  I see it as a premium purchase, and focused on business class, for data protection.  If I had a company that dealt with personal information of my customer's you would bet I would tie in this tech to all of the road warriors out there, as well as encryption in case of a laptop getting stolen. Replacing stolen hardware, that's nothing.  But recovering sensitive and personal information  and trying to insure that you weren't compromised in anyway...that's a nightmare.


----------



## cadaveca (Dec 17, 2010)

Yeah, I agree on it's target market..I mentioned that earlier. I'd actually very much like to see it implemented at that level...for government and such. would give the tech guys at that level some more work, too, maybe leading to job creation. Someone has to fix things when it screws up


----------



## Tatty_One (Dec 17, 2010)

hat said:


> So if someone's laptop gets stolen, they can call Intel and have tham magically encrypt their hard drive for them?
> 
> As far as I know, this is about Intel remotely shutting down processors, not handling everyone's encryption too. What all is there to this?



Firstly, of course they cant call Intel, they will not have the key codes for VPro, the company who owns the laptop will have paid a lot of money for the software.  The little bit of VPro software that deals with the CPU is exactly that, just a little bit of the package, so the company with the stolen laptop can ring Intel, quote their keycode number for THAT individual laptop and Intel can send the "kill pill".

Now apart from Vpro, there is an overarching System management system that VPro can form a part of so there are full disk encryption services amongst about another 75 apps to choose from, the subject of this thread is just one small part of it and does not stand alone.  The company cares less about the hardware and more about the contents and sensativity of the info it is storing, thats where the greatest money loss is at.  I am not saying I agree with it.... just trying to understand it.


----------



## 95Viper (Dec 17, 2010)

JF-AMD said:


> I am not aware of any of this technology on our side. But I only work in server.  To me, personally, this seems like an opportunity for a problem.



While, not exactly implemented the same... It has the potential to accomplish the same results with the out-of-band tech implementation.

Quote from AMD's Web site: Manageability for Desktop and Notebook Clients

"Out-of band Management for Desktops and Notebooks"

"Management tools and technology are also available to perform “out-of-band” management tasks. In contrast to “in-band” tasks, “out-of-band” tasks are performed independently of the OS or the power state of the PC. A typical out-of-band task would be powering on a PC that is shut down and powered off."

Other info:

AMD Business PCs & Windows® 7 
VISION Pro Technology from AMD: Commercial Desktop Platforms with DAS 1.0 for Virtualization, Manageability and Security
Manageability with AMD Business Solutions

Other:
DASH

Certain individuals & businesses want it and the manufacturers will provide it.
If the idea succeeds, IMO others (including AMD) will follow suite.

EDIT:
@Tatty> I do so  like that avatar!


----------



## JF-AMD (Dec 17, 2010)

To access those those things you need security and credentials.  AMD cannot access your system via these channels.


----------



## niko084 (Dec 17, 2010)

I will sit back and wait for some hacker team to figure out how to do this.... Then I will laugh at all the peons.

Where there is an ability there will be a way around security.

And while I sorta understand this move, I cannot say in the least of any way possible that I support it.

PS: Onstar has been hacked in the past and if you spend a bit of time looking you can turn red lights green just like the police do with a little bit of work and electronics knowledge.


----------



## JF-AMD (Dec 17, 2010)

Out of band management has been available in servers for as long as I have been in servers. And that has been almost 20 years.


----------



## niko084 (Dec 17, 2010)

JF-AMD said:


> Out of band management has been available in servers for as long as I have been in servers. And that has been almost 20 years.



Yes but that's a little different.... We are talking about making your hardware useless here, for the average consumer at that.

I'm pretty certain they will have to put some type of safe guard in otherwise all the big names will simply choose not to use Intel cpu's.. And thus Intel will go out of business, they should make a public statement on this asap now that the rumors are out or this will seriously hurt their business.


----------



## JF-AMD (Dec 17, 2010)

95viper was the one that brought up out of band management, I was replying


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Dec 17, 2010)

Now I may be an ordinary hyper chicken, but:


> _Intel AT provides several features that thwart
> attempts to circumvent its anti-theft capabilities.
> Once Intel AT has been enabled in the BIOS, had
> the correct firmware installed on the platform, and
> ...


and


> _. . . once a laptop is marked “stolen, ”
> responses can include:
> •  Disable access to encrypted data by
> deleting a critical encryption key stored
> ...


from Intel's AT evalution linked by Tatty

My interpretation (as read from Intel's perspective):
"_I think if we're intentionally vague we can delay the hackers from abusing this new AT mechanism by up to a day._"

Personally I'll let encryption protect my data and I'll protect my laptop.

Also, this popped into my head:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/89250/oni...s-protect-privacy-by-moving-to-remote-village


----------



## niko084 (Dec 17, 2010)

streetfighter 2 said:


> Personally I'll let encryption protect my data and I'll protect my laptop.



I'm just curious but whats your knowledge level...

Encryption can cause HUGE issues if you don't keep a good backup.
I find a lot of people don't understand that part or don't take it into consideration.

Just a friendly note.


----------



## overclocking101 (Dec 17, 2010)

and everyone thought these new chips were going to be the 2nd coming of christ, guess what! locked multi EVEN on the "K" cpu's and now this! nope I wont buy this crap ill stick with what I have or go X58


----------



## MatTheCat (Dec 17, 2010)

overclocking101 said:


> and everyone thought these new chips were going to be the 2nd coming of christ, guess what! *locked multi EVEN on the "K" cpu*'s and now this! nope I wont buy this crap ill stick with what I have or go X58



FFS.

LOL.

Well remote kill switch or not. I certainly won't be purcahsing one of these. Looks it will be Bulldozer for me in March 2011.


----------



## F1reFly (Dec 17, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Oh, it's like OnStar for computers (they can remotely turn off a stolen car and prevent it from starting). :/



that and cell phones can be used to eavesdrop. frankly i dont care, i'd rather they just join me in the convo


----------



## Batou1986 (Dec 17, 2010)

I think the whole point of this is to make using TPM encrypted stuff more secure.

While you cant make a TPM encrypted HDD work in another machine, someone may figure out a way to bypass the security on the original machine gaining access to the correct TPM and accessing your files.

If the original system is locked due to this tech and the HDD is encrypted with a TPM it makes it damn near impossible to crack.


----------



## Thatguy (Dec 18, 2010)

Batou1986 said:


> I think the whole point of this is to make using TPM encrypted stuff more secure.
> 
> While you cant make a TPM encrypted HDD work in another machine, someone may figure out a way to bypass the security on the original machine gaining access to the correct TPM and accessing your files.
> 
> If the original system is locked due to this tech and the HDD is encrypted with a TPM it makes it damn near impossible to crack.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Dec 18, 2010)

overclocking101 said:


> and everyone thought these new chips were going to be the 2nd coming of christ, guess what! locked multi EVEN on the "K" cpu's and now this! nope I wont buy this crap ill stick with what I have or go X58



Blatant lies.

Sandy Bridge K parts' multipliers can go up to *57x*. That's 5.7GHz in case you don't know.


----------



## Tatty_One (Dec 18, 2010)

MatTheCat said:


> FFS.
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Well remote kill switch or not. I certainly won't be purcahsing one of these. Looks it will be Bulldozer for me in March 2011.



I don't think you could purchase one if you tried and thats really just my point, they are intended for Mobile use and probably OEM only, at the end of the day is an individual (rather than a large corporation) going to spend a lot of money on VPro just to disable one laptop if it gets stolen, the facility may be there in the mobile chip at the hardware level but if the user aint subscribed to the software then as far as I can read it, there is nothing going to happen, remembering that this technology supposidly has been requested by corporate users.


----------



## 95Viper (Dec 19, 2010)

JF-AMD said:


> 95viper was the one that brought up out of band management, I was replying



And, thank you for the reply.  

I was trying to show that there are such options; while, not totally hardware based.
They are not some subversive tactics; they are for the organizations that require or want them.
Also, if, this does take off... I can see other manufacturers following the lead.

The company, I retired from, used them for the protection of our information.



NONYA said:


> The info was ILLEGALLY released moron...



I don't believe that is productive to this thread (my opinion).

And, it is not very nice to call someone names and flame bait them.


----------



## Tatty_One (Dec 19, 2010)

NONYA said:


> The info was ILLEGALLY released moron...



Less of the insults otherwise I might just do something moronic, I think he was saying that Wikileaks has done nothing illegal as opposed to the guy who actually stole and disclosed the info.


----------



## scooper22 (Jan 14, 2011)

*bump* becaus eI think it's important to know about the SB remote kill pill (which actually has been around since 2008 in Intel's chipsets BTW)

I think it will not be used to shutown half a million of computers but to shut down just a handful important servers just before the groundtroops come marching in. Ah, yes, and the presidents "internet kill switch", which will result in a genocide in the server market, and without the servers there's no infrastructure or economy, which will make a country surrender even faster.


----------

