Honestly I’m surprised that they cant just be remotely disabled. I’m not advocating for this feature by the way. I’m just surprised that it’s not a thing.
1) The GPU probably already comes with a driver CD that can't have this serial number marked as stolen.
2) Even if you use a downloaded driver, you can just use the last version that didn't contain the serial.
You'll be left out of future driver updates, but that is of no concern to miners.
But to use that to self destroy if stoken or the like would likely generate way too much negative PR to nvidia and bring unwanted attention, so they wont.
I'd bet a large number of linux users are in this situation since nouveau (nvidia), intel, and amdgpu drivers all exist in the linux kernel and work well.
I also really don't see activation lock as consumer rights taking a loss, thieves aren't consumers. Being able to brick hardware that thieves steal is a consumer protection. If EVGA started to block resale, that would be a completely different story, but I was happy to activation lock my stolen iPhone. Apple lets you resell, but if you steal a truck load of iPhones I doubt they would activate.
No, its the company compelling me to protect it's property at my expense using my CPU and my Internet connection without compensation or due process.
Even if its changed hands, its still illegal to purchase stolen property and the police will just take it from you without compensating you.
The anti-mining technique that Nvidia uses depends on firmware modifications as well. Thus the firmware of these stolen GPUs must already support such a banlist.
That's not how it works. Nvidia drivers don't phone home to prevent mining blocking. Totally different scenario.
https://twitter.com/bdelrizzo/status/1362619264423747590
https://old.reddit.com/r/gpumining/comments/pbgyi9/to_clear_...
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/nvidia-will-add-anti...
https://wccftech.com/nvidia-geforce-rtx-30-lhr-lite-hash-rat...
Well, NVidia could require these, and make your card phone home every X minutes.
You mean treat my entire computer as it's NVidia's property and make it do what it wants? I really hope that would be illegal.
Not saying I'd like this, or that I endorse this, though.
Nvidia already does this for things like DriveOS.
https://docs.nvidia.com/drive/drive-os-5.2.0.0L/drive-os/ind...
They apply the same type of gatekeeping to power management and reclocking in post-Maxwell GPU architectures. This is why the nouveau driver hasn't been able to maintain parity with the proprietary driver.
I can't quite remember the search engine contortions I did to home in on it the first time, but I think "Falcon high-security power-management reclocking firmware signature verification Maxwell 970 GPU driver" should get you in the right direction.
Basically, Nvidia cryptographically signs the firmware blob (digest), and I think uses asymmetric crypto implemented through a public key embedded in the silicon that can decrypt the firmware signature shipped with the driver for comparison by the Falcon microprocessor to gate access to what firmware code can gain access to the power management/reclocking API's that make modern gfx cards useful. I was doing some research on it at one point between jobs, but it's been a while. Long story short, if Nvidia doesn't bless your firmware, you can't get full use out of your card. Anti-competitive/anti-user as all hell, no network connection required, and you can technically still "use it" at a near useless base clock rate.
This practice is part of why there was all that controversy around that hash-rate limiter added to 3060/70 GPU firmware? A signed development version of the driver without the hash-rate limiter was leaked, meaning all the miners just used that as their driver to get full performance cryptocurrency mining on the cheaper cards.
This is why, God as my witness, I will do everything in my power to never support Nvidia as a company ever again, and I have become increasingly vigilant against other actors trying to sneakily push cryptography based anti-features elsewhere.
I was never interested in hardware at this level of gory detail before, but now that I've seen it it can't be unseen; and I must protect open computing for those who come after me.
Probably not, they’re more likely to get used for mining by someone who knows they’re stolen. The thieves already know that selling them is extremely risky. Which is why tracking from the driver is an interesting idea, but also probably won’t work. But then again, we’re only speculating, so maybe it’d work!
Sure that runs foul of computer misuse act, millioms od people were downloading a driver, and you used it to get admin rights and take control of their computer, and 99.9% of them have no stolen GPU.
It's like if you broke into and searched every house in London to find a batch of srolen iPhones, you aren't allowed to do that
Let's ignore the privacy and consumer rights implications of what you're proposing for a second. Is the cost of adding remote tracking and disabling capability to every EVGA video card worth it? How does that impact their ORM customers knowing that they're now on the hook for any security failure EVGA has? They could introduce a vulnerability far worse than anything they prevent. Any hacker that compromises EVGA's remote kill switch keys could now hijack their entire user base.
So EVGA loses a truckload of hardware in a theft in an event so rare that the fact that it happens makes the front page of hackernews. Unless this starts to be a pattern, it makes far more sense for them to file an insurance claim and write off the loss than to try a risky technical solution - which might not even work, given that hackers are really good at bypassing DRM solutions anyway.
My comment still stands. You asked why the feature doesn't exist, and I gave a very reasonable possible answer.
They might theoretically be on the hook for damages they introduce, but in reality, there's already a ton of services running on every device that can compromise you if the infrastructure behind it is hacked. EVGA wouldn't even be a worthwhile target.
And, as mentioned above, NVidia already has the necessary infrastructure in place. So the effective cost for doing this would be close to zero.
> which might not even work, given that hackers are really good at bypassing DRM solutions anyway.
Hackers are, yes. But the price you fetch for a card will go down massively if you need high technical skills to run it.
Would you purchase an Evga card if you knew they could disable it remotely? How about if you’re an OEM and you’re bundling video cards, would you risk the hit to your brand?
From the pov of the end user this is an anti feature. It makes the product worse.
So the answer to
> How about if you’re an OEM and you’re bundling video cards, would you risk the hit to your brand?
is clearly yes, as has been shown in the last years. Hell, we have cars that can be disabled remotely. Nearly nobody cares about about them creating a capability you could reasonably assume they already had. You and I might, but most consumers care about FPS - and getting a card at all - much more.
And I'm not against this either. The law can provide a strong set of rights for actual owners, but if your product is stolen, you have no rights over it.
For laptops and smartphones, sure being stolen a common risk, and that kind of functionality grants the end-user some protection, and perhaps a chance to recover the good.
For TVs and motherboards, GPUs, printers, etc it's basically superfluous DRM that typically only serves the manufacturer.
Overall Smart TVs have been the polar opposite of user-respecting technology.
Once you purchase the product legitimately, you now have legal protection so that the OEM may not lock you out. Products should respect the owner. Stolen products are still owned by the OEM and not the person physically holding the product.
But the reality is that it never will activate and you wont ever know about it so it can't possibly impact your life and there are appropriate safe guards against misuse. It's about as useful as asking why you are forced to use a specific brand of flash chip on the image processing board.
Note: I'm just kidding.
you watch a lot of disney.