Comment by ccrush | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ccrush | Hacker News Reader

Good. This concept of continually restricting the owner of a processor from controlling the code that executes on his machine is a futile attempt at providing "products" which are nothing more than theft. The only reason this is a requirement for POWERDVD is because they insist on treating people like thieves and locking down the ability to watch high quality movies behind a wall that keeps the user from seeing and controlling code executed on their device.

The Secret Network is also attempting to force users to execute code which they cannot inspect or modify in order to implement the core component that sets their bullshit crypto block chain aside from Ethereum, for example. They're not selling some novel software. They're selling Ethereum running in SGX to keep you from copying NFTs or inspecting the content of smart contracts. Furthermore, anyone running this or other SGX software should be ashamed of themselves for allowing these thieves to pretend they're doing anything other than taking advantage of a poorly implemented scheme to deprive you of your control over your property.

Few people seem to recall the blowback Intel got over their Pentium III chips containing a unique processor ID, and how they went as far as having the ID disabled by default in every BIOS to keep people from mass migrating to AMD. The same thing should happen with these trash SGX implementations, and the most embarrassing thing is that Intel plans to launch software defined silicon, making users pay for CPU features while shipping the exact same chip to everyone. One of the main features they want to ship to eveyone and sell to suckers is SGX itself. You can see this here: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-officially-introduce...

Frankly, everyone should be ashamed for using Intel hardware when AMD chips do not abuse the user with these schemes and generally allow much more freedom. Intel makes people pay for frequency unlocked chips, pay for features shipped with the chip, and even pay to have code they do not control run on their system. If this isn't an absolute embarrassment to anyone purchasing CPUs, it's a poor reflection on them and their obvious stupidity and contempt for their own freedom.

> everyone should be ashamed for using Intel hardware when AMD chips do not abuse the user

AMD has their own analog to Intel's Management Engine. Maybe they don't have SGX or something like it, but AMD is no saint either.

In theory, SGX can be used for good: see Signal's use to avoid seeing users' contact lists. Granted, their scheme is pretty broken given how broken SGX is (and probably for other reasons), but I think the idea behind it is good. Of course, we can't force companies not to use technology in anti-user ways, and I assume Intel built SGX with the PowerDVD-type use cases in mind.

"Ashamed" is a weird word, not sure why I'd be "ashamed" for choosing an Intel-based laptop that meets my needs, when nothing with an AMD CPU did. Maybe the Framework folks will eventually build an AMD-based mainboard, and if they do, I'll consider it, but for now I have what I have, and I don't particularly feel... anything... about it, let alone shame.

You say we can't force companies to not use tech in anti user ways, but then you'll give them your money becuase you can't find a laptop with an AMD chip. And I assume you just haven't shopped for a laptop long enough or you'd find one that matches your needs without Intel taking a dump on your chest while pretending to care about anything more than your money.

You seem to be... weirdly emotional about this issue, so I doubt we're going to see eye-to-eye here.

Ultimately we have limited choices in the market, and we have to make compromises. I'm fine running an Intel chip (which doesn't even have SGX, as they don't ship SGX in non-server SKUs anymore), and don't run anything that uses SGX... not sure there's anything written for desktop Linux that I'd use that even tries to use it anyway.

In another post downthread you acknowledge that AMD has their own trusted execution engine (which they don't ship... but neither does Intel, at least in consumer hardware), so for some reason you seem to love AMD and hate Intel when they essentially do the same things.

You also list a bunch of bad stuff Intel has done -- and yes, agreed, they were bad -- but I'm sure AMD has done just as much similar bad stuff. And if not, I'm sure it's not because they're saints, but because they hadn't had the clout of a dominant-enough market position (like Intel has had) that would allow them to get away with things like that. I have no doubt they would have done similar things if they found themselves in similar circumstances. ::shrug::

Either way, this whole "Intel vs. AMD" thing is not really a hill I care do die on... much more important stuff going on in my life.

AMD has SEV: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_(first_generation)#Enhance...

It works on slightly different layer (virtualisation, not process), but the threat model and capabilities are pretty much the same.

> making users pay for CPU features while shipping the exact same chip to everyone

This is already a pretty common practice IIRC, it's just that the features are usually disabled at the hardware level.

Buy one CPU get another free? Sounds like a win to me. Hell, it even runs itself!

AMD has the PSP too.

The PSP is not the same as SGX. That's more like the management engine, and while I agree that both Intel and AMD are shipping that antiuser "feautue" and that AMD had its own implementation of a trusted execution environment like SGX, the current AMD chips do not ship with it. AMD is not perfect, but it's sad that people can choose one or the other and still prefer to hand Intel their money when Intel goes out of their way to take advantage of their users.

- Intel wanted to lock users to RamBus RDRAM which was incompatible with AMD chips and a patented technology which AMD would not be able to use.

- Intel shipped the aforemtioned CPU identifier. Intel did the management engine first.

- Intel locks its chips from frequency tuning so they can charge more for overclocking.

- Intel locks the amount of RAM that is addressable by their chips arbitrarily rather than basing it on hardware support in order to squeeze more money out of you.

- Intel and NVIDIA locked their GPU linking technology (SLI) while AMD allows Crossfire to run on both Intel and AMD processors.

These are just the ones I remember off the top of my head. Not all of them may be current, but it's obvious that Intel has no problem extorting money from their customers in a million ways where AMD doesn't play this disgusting game.

> AMD had its own implementation of a trusted execution environment like SGX, the current AMD chips do not ship with it.

As far as I can tell, AMD does currently ship a trusted execution environment supporting remote attestation, namely SEV. However, it’s only supported on server-class processors, so it’s unlikely to be used for DRM.

But AMD is fully on-board of the Microsoft Pluton platform, while even Intel is not. So again, the only difference was that AMD didn't have the means for these types of schemes. Now they do and they are also growing in the enterprise/datacenter market, so they will inevitably build more and more of this.

> Intel and NVIDIA locked their GPU linking technology (SLI)

Are you sure about that? Ten years ago or so I had an ASUS motherboard for AMD processors that explicitly supported SLI.

- Intel disables ECC Ram support for their consumer CPUs, AMD does not

Reply on news.ycombinator.com