Dear AMD, WHAT THE HELL?!?! AMD locking users out of their hardware

[linux5850]

Looks like AMD is locking down their hardware and locking out the users and costomers of the hardware.

http://ir.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74...cle&ID=1704888

Through a strategic technology partnership with ARM, AMD will integrate the established ARM(R) TrustZone(R) technology into future Accelerated Processing Units (APUs) via a system-on-a-chip (SoC) design methodology.

In a presentation this week at the AMD Fusion Developer Summit 2012 (AFDS), AMD Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer Mike Wolfe described AMD's vision to advance computing security by enhancing AMD's existing security technologies. This is expected to include developing a platform security processor using an ARM Cortex(TM)-A5 CPU that features TrustZone technology, to monitor and help protect against malicious access to sensitive data and operations at the hardware level.

This isn't real security. It's a way of preventing users from access to the hardware they they paid for and preventing users from using software of they choose to use.

[linux5850]

Some more info on this new AMD strategy to put "Trusted Computing" (meaning "we at AMD don't trust you the user or owner of the hardware they buy from us") into every AMD CPU and APU they make

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6007/a...e-capabilities

Also known as ACTA/SOPA in every AMD APU/CPU.

[linux5850]

And here's a short video on what "Trusted Computing" is

http://www.lafkon.net/tc


or on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuI6SLFnGbQ

[0xBADCODE]

Btw, UEFI "secure" boot comes and it about to restrict us on what we can boot and would also force our computers to "trust" to someone. And that "someone" wouldn't be YOU. This basically implies your computer obeys not to you but to it's manufacturer. Whoa.

[TobiSGD]

Btw, UEFI "secure" boot comes and it about to restrict us on what we can boot and would also force our computers to "trust" to someone. And that "someone" wouldn't be YOU. This basically implies your computer obeys not to you but to it's manufacturer. Whoa.

Please get your facts straight.

[crazycheese]

Please get your facts straight.

Why, he is correct.
They just make exception NOW with current x86 implementation of UEFI.

[TobiSGD]

Why, he is correct.
They just make exception NOW with current x86 implementation of UEFI.

He says that they are locking us out and that si simply not true. Neither you nor me know how it will be in the future, so saying that they do it now does not imply they won't do it in the future.
This is just FUD, not facts.
As for the non-x86 hardware: Simple as that, don't buy something with Microsoft on it. They don't have a monopoly there, so not buying their hardware is the simple and normal way to show a commercial company that you won't tolerate this.
Also, this has nothing to do with UEFI. While Secure Boot is an UEFI standard it is neither UEFI nor Secure Boot that is allegedly "locking you out", it is Microsoft.

[crazycheese]

He says that they are locking us out and that si simply not true. Neither you nor me know how it will be in the future, so saying that they do it now does not imply they won't do it in the future.
This is just FUD, not facts.
As for the non-x86 hardware: Simple as that, don't buy something with Microsoft on it. They don't have a monopoly there, so not buying their hardware is the simple and normal way to show a commercial company that you won't tolerate this.
Also, this has nothing to do with UEFI. While Secure Boot is an UEFI standard it is neither UEFI nor Secure Boot that is allegedly "locking you out", it is Microsoft.

I think you misunderstand. It will be not your decision, whether UEFI secureboot can be turned off. Played by microsoft, it should NOT be turn-able.
Also, 95% of PCs have windows preinstalled even today and you are talking about them not having monopoly? Even if you buy hardware, you get microsoft drivers and hardware supports _officially_ only windows. Why should you actually get that, you bought hardware, not part of microsoft! I don't know, but this is how it works. Probably an array of hidden agreements with hardware manufacturers, like the contract of not-releasing a driver patch for any OS before windows gets it first in windows driver.

"not buying their hardware" will not stop them, it will only have you being left alone without computer.
And their certified hardware (read - all hardware) runs only in locked mode.

Say, how much success have you had with AMD not releasing even their docs on UVD interfaces by buying nvidia hardware instead? Even Bridgeman recommended me nvidia hardware, lol.

"don't buying" will not help you, just as ignorance never helps. Getting them sued by major players will help however, as well as making good public resonance.

[mark45]

This isn't real security. It's a way of preventing users from access to the hardware they they paid for and preventing users from using software of they choose to use.

This process isn't going to stop no matter how many people protest against it, it can only be put on hold for a while but then it'll start over again (maybe under a different label).

Anyone watching what's going on knows that even if such a "security" project meets opposition the people behind the project either change tactics or take a break and start over again, e.g. think of ACTA/patents in software, Trusted computing in hw, the TSA in real life, world-wide 3 color terror-alerts, there's plenty of evidence, and it almost always gets pushed in the name of security or IP.

[TobiSGD]

I think you misunderstand. It will be not your decision, whether UEFI secureboot can be turned off. Played by microsoft, it should NOT be turn-able.

There must be the ability to switch it off on x86 hardware if that hardware wants to get a Windows 8 logo. Have you even read the description from Microsoft about the requirements for the logo or are you just bitching around?

Also, 95% of PCs have windows preinstalled even today and you are talking about them not having monopoly?

Learn to read. What I posted was:

As for the non-x86 hardware: Simple as that, don't buy something with Microsoft on it. They don't have a monopoly there

Are the PCs that come with Windows pre-installed with non-x86 CPUs? I don't think so.

Even if you buy hardware, you get microsoft drivers and hardware supports _officially_ only windows. Why should you actually get that, you bought hardware, not part of microsoft!

That is something that lies in the accountability of the hardware manufacturer, not in Microsoft's and is actually simply not true. If AMD or Nvidia have a driver for Linux downloadable from their official website I would call that official support.

Probably an array of hidden agreements with hardware manufacturers

Probably, probably not. Without any evidence nothing but FUD and conspiracy theories.

"not buying their hardware" will not stop them, it will only have you being left alone without computer.
And their certified hardware (read - all hardware) runs only in locked mode.

Again, you should learn to read, what I wrote about not buying their non-x86 hardware (which leaves you plenty of Android devices to buy) and also the requirements for getting a Windows 8 logo. They will not lock you out, they will even make sure that you can load your own keys into Secure Boot on x86 hardware.

Say, how much success have you had with AMD not releasing even their docs on UVD interfaces by buying nvidia hardware instead? Even Bridgeman recommended me nvidia hardware, lol.

Not that again, everyone here knows why they can't release the docs for UVD. See it the other way around: What changes will come to Nvidia for not being bought for millions of Chinese systems? Aren't the suddenly asking how they can improve the situation? Or do you really think this comes because of Linus Torvalds harsh words (IMHO they don't give a shit about Linus, they only care for money).

"don't buying" will not help you, just as ignorance never helps. Getting them sued by major players will help however, as well as making good public resonance.

Getting them sued for what? Do you have any evidences for a behavior they can get sued for? I doubt so.