The solution's simple . . . don't use an intel processor. Goodness knows
they're overpriced!
Has AMD started doing this?
Dick
----------
> From: Joe <rigdonj_at_intellistar.net>
> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
> Subject: OT: Intel in hot water again, interesting reading!
> Date: Thursday, February 11, 1999 4:48 PM
>
> FYI
>
> >
> > <http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/scoop-top.gif> The Scoop
> > http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/blank.gif
> ><http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/blank.gif>
> >http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/blank.gif
> ><http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/blank.gif>
> >http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/blank.gif
> ><http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/blank.gif>
> >By Fred Langa
> >By Fred Langa
> >
> >InformationWeek
> >
> >You probably saw the original coverage of Intel's announcement that it
would
> >embed an individual serial number in each Pentium III and Celeron chip.
The
> >96-bit ID can identify the user's PC to any software that knows how to
ask.
> >
> >Immediately after the announcement, various consumer watchdog groups
went
> >ballistic. Epic, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, launched a
> >boycott of Intel, calling it the "Big Brother Inside" campaign. Epic
says
> >the processor serial number, "would likely be collected by many sites,
> >indexed and accumulated in databases...The records of many different
> >companies could be joined without the user's knowledge or consent to
provide
> >an intrusive profile of activity on the computer."
> >
> >Intel immediately backed off a bit by announcing that although the
serial
> >number would ship enabled on every chip, Intel would provide equipment
> >manufacturers with a small software applet that could be used to prevent
> >access to the number. However, the software must work (it hasn't been
tested
> >yet); it must be properly installed on each PC; and it must be run after
> >every reboot.
> >
> >Epic says that because this approach "relies on a software patch that
must
> >run each and every time that a user turns on the computer, it is
susceptible
> >to tampering by other software programs." So, Epic's boycott is still in
> >place: The group insists that Intel should disable the processor serial
> >number at the hardware level, where it will stay disabled until the PC
owner
> >turns it on.
> >
> >To further muddy the waters, the processor serial number may not be very
> >secure. CMP Media's Electronic Engineering Times quoted cryptography
expert
> >Bruce Schneier, who talked about the prospect that the serial numbers
can be
> >forged or stolen: "A system is only as secure as the smartest hacker,"
he
> >said. "All it takes is for one person to defeat the tamper resistance.
> >There's always someone who manages to unravel the protection. There
isn't a
> >copy-protected piece of software that hasn't been stripped of its
> >protections and posted to hacker bulletin boards. This won't be any
> >different." (For the full story, go to "Intel ID Protection Scheme
Called
> >Insufficient.")
> >
> >Of course, there are legitimate and useful purposes for this kind of ID,
> >especially for resource-tracking within an enterprise. Indeed, some
> >workstation manufacturers already include similar functions on their
> >enterprise-ready boxes, and some enterprise software products use these
> >serial numbers for licensing. But Intel is attempting to broaden this
> >practice to an unprecedented degree by putting the ID number on every
chip
> >and enabling it by default. Toss in only weak assurances of the serial
> >number's security and only a weak turn-off option, and you're got a
> >firestorm of protests.
> >
> >Last week, I conducted an informal online poll among the readers of
Windows
> >Magazine. The reaction was eye-opening: Out of hundreds of posts,
virtually
> >all were vehemently anti-Intel. And in that huge majority, most people
swore
> >their next PC purchase would be AMD-based, until and unless Intel either
> >removes the processor serial number or allows it to be disabled in
hardware.
> >One reader suggested the clever idea of resurrecting the old "turbo"
switch
> >approach and placing a simple serial number enable/disable button on the
> >front of every PC. (You can read more on the controversy and see reader
> >reaction at Windows Magazine: Big Brother Inside?.)
> >
> >I was amazed at the absolute intensity of the reader posts. It's as
though
> >the processor serial number was the last straw for many people: Intel's
> >history of high prices and other public relations fumbles (like the
> >floating-point math bug) seem to have built up a huge reservoir of
> >resentment that's now spilling over. I think we're seeing the start of a
> >strong anti-Intel backlash, analogous to the anti-Microsoft fervor
that's
> >changing the operating system landscape.
> >
> >Fred Langa is a senior consulting editor and columnist for Windows
Magazine.
> >Fred's free weekly newsletter is available via subscribe_at_langa.com
> ><mailto:subscribe_at_langa.com> . You can contact him at fred_at_langa.com
> ><mailto:fred_at_langa.com> or via his website at http://www.langa.com
> ><http://www.langa.com> . http://www.techweb.com/
<
http://www.techweb.com/>
> >
Received on Fri Feb 12 1999 - 14:43:44 GMT
