Slashdot Mirror


Intel's Sandy Bridge Processor Has a Kill Switch

An anonymous reader writes "Intel's new Sandy Bridge processors have a new feature that the chip giant is calling Anti-Theft 3.0. The processor can be disabled even if the computer has no Internet connection or isn't even turned on, over a 3G network. With Intel anti-theft technology built into Sandy Bridge, David Allen, director of distribution sales at Intel North America, said that users have the option to set up their processor so that if their computer is lost or stolen, it can be shut down remotely."

399 comments

  1. A global remote kill switch in our computers by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What could possibly go wrong.

    1. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Dyinobal · · Score: 1

      Skynet defense system 1.0

    2. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skynet is going to have a field day with this.

    3. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by greatica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Somebody forgets about this feature and puts a processor in an airplane or some other type of mission-critical machine.

    4. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by gilesjuk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sure the virus writers are rubbing their hands with glee waiting to get their hands on one of these chips.

    5. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by ceeam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > our computers

      As an AMD fanboy - say for yourself.

    6. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Pharago · · Score: 1

      What could possibly go wrong.

      indeed, this might become the most sought after vulnerability, the holy grail of hacking, or even a new sport: cpu kill drive by

      instead of making a cpu with a decent integrated gpu, intel is giving us the possibility of killing it without even having to open the computer case

    7. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      What could possibly go wrong.

      Nothing ... because I'm sure that Intel can turn it back on remotely (for a price). Hmm, I wonder what they're charging to turn it off once it is reported stolen?

    8. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an ARM fanboy, with all my jobs running in the cloud - likewise to the OP. Oh, wait..

    9. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by CaptainPatent · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm sure the virus writers are rubbing their hands with glee waiting to get their hands on one of these chips.

      Actually, Kill-switch based malware is much less valuable in reality than other types of hacks. If this were a server processor, I could see the value in an enhanced remote server-kill. Because these are basic home-use processors though, remote kill viruses probably won't get much farther than proof-of-concept.

      Botnets are much more lucrative in the malware world - processor uptime is much more valuable than processor downtime.

      --
      Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
    10. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by morari · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So what? The computer will be unusable (unless the thief wants to foot for a new CPU and motherboard) but the hard drive will still be there, full of your data! A few screws later and the drive will be hooked up to another computer, with all your info ready for the picking!

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    11. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by tqk · · Score: 1

      What could possibly go wrong.

      Indeed, and what a foolish way of doing it! If it's connected via 3G, report its GPS location quietly, FFS!

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by node+3 · · Score: 5, Funny

      intel is giving us the possibility of killing [a PC] without even having to open the computer case

      Sounds like Intel is trying to muscle in on Microsoft's turf.

    13. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      This was possible for a long time with phones yet it wasn't phone tracking which for the most part killed phone theft but remote kill switches.
      I don't like the implications but it could cut down on theft a lot.

    14. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Snowblindeye · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't know what Intel is putting into those chips, but I am highly doubtful it is the way the article states it.

      Chip real estate is expensive. So Intel is going to put a complete 3G module on the CPU and use it only for this feature? And to top it off, it has some kinda of separate battery, cause you know, it works when the chip is off? Nonsense.

      This is probably some feature that gets build into the AMT support of some chipsets, maybe on Laptops that have a 3G connection already.But the way they are describing this? I call BS on that.

    15. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Great for a Physical Denial of Service attack, though. Imagine very ATM going down at once and requiring physical service to repair?

    16. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, Kill-switch based malware is much less valuable in reality than other types of hacks.

      Unless you are going after Iran or Wikileaks.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    17. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or you're trying to access wikileaks.ch ...

      --
      I hope I didn't brain my damage.
    18. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this really for antitheft, or will we one day have our computers disabled for angering our RIAA overlords? XD

    19. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this story smells bogus to me. That is, the rational for the existence of the feature. If my laptop is stolen, how the hell is disabling it remotely going to help me? How about a feature that automatically blasts out a beacon over 3G so the cops can go find the guy and get my machine back, instead?

    20. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

      No kidding. I also saw nothing like this listed in any development info. Given that this isn't some secret leak, but rather public knowledge, that tells me that we are missing something.

      My bet is you are correct. They have new features in AMT that can work kinda like CompuTrace, but instead as a kill switch. So if the computer can be contacted, then there you go. Now in the event of a computer with 3G then maybe the new AMT system can maintain a listening state (like it does with LAN) and upon the right signal, act. So you could interface with the system when it is "off" though really while the system is off, AMT is running just very low power.

      Like you say, can't imagine they'd put 3G on a CPU, much less a high end one, and not be trumpeting about how awesome it is any Sandy Bridge computer can get on the webs anywhere.

    21. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Splab · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but 3G is running on top of GSM networks, this requires all sorts of annoying things, like a working subscription, a SIM card...

    22. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by siddesu · · Score: 2

      Or extorting the random gambling site.

    23. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      you mean the spooks.

      or, well, they were the ones who ASKED for this 'feature'.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    24. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since AMT already supports power on, off and reboot remotely over LAN it's just natural for this to be extended to a 3G equipped laptop. Adding new features such as a kill switch also falls under the captain obvious category. I believe you are correct and that the original article is mostly bait for comment rage.

      I'd take a guess that this is a new feature for the QM67 chipset variants.

    25. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I call BS... I mean c'mon, not only the on-chip 'real estate' for a complete 3G module, but the *antenna* for 3G? Not very likely, especially on-chip, underneath whats usually the metal cap on top of the chip itself?

    26. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope.

      Ransom - infect, spread, target a small fraction of machines with a malware induced popup (wire $money to $offShoreAccount with $reference or we kill your computer), where $money is less than the cost of a computer but enough to be worth it. Get just a few dozen people a day, and as long as you can keep the money moving you can grab more money than the botnet alone.

      It only takes the media to report a few of these kill-switches going off to get people to panic, and panicked people are more likely to pay the ransom. If your careful about targetting you might even be able to push the ransoms into quadruple digit territories.

      Alternatively, configure the malware to activate the killswitch if it's compromised. People will blame the anti-virus program instead of the Virus... with the end result that people start dropping AV protections, giving you more potential targets.

      Malware writers don't play by our rules, so don't assume they won't take advantage of this.

    27. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or your competitors!

    28. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by tqk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This was possible for a long time with phones yet it wasn't phone tracking which for the most part killed phone theft but remote kill switches.

      Theft, shmeft! I want the thieves tracked down and caught. Killing the box just means you need to buy (from Intel?) another box. Great for Intel's sales, but no help to us!

      And what does killing the CPU do to the data on the drives in the box? Methinks nothing. If it's not encrypted, they've got your data. Who cares about the box (hint: only Intel, as they can supply a replacement). This is a really dumb "solution" on Intel's part.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    29. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by sjames · · Score: 1

      Servers are useless without clients. Imagine a day a few years from now where millions of people wake up and discover they have no computer. Then they get to work and discover that they still have no computer.

      The good news is that the story is either missing some important information of just plain wrong. It seems REALLY unlikely Intel would build a complete 3G radio and antenna into the CPU just for that.

    30. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      Sensitive document ransomware will surely be even more profitable now.

    31. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Sure, speculate to your heart's content.

      google
      site:intel.com "anti-theft 3.0"
      returns 0 hits, so all the comments here, and the story itself, are just speculative rubbish.

    32. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by __aatirs3925 · · Score: 1

      True, and if I were to rob someone's computer i would dismantle it almost immediately and get rid of any internal tracking units like a 3G antenna. This also poses the question "Why would you disable the computer if you can get that computer access to 3G network?" Just triangulate the approximate location and it'll be getting close to home base. This would also allow computers to easily connect to the net without an air card. There's nothing on Google stating that this is legit and all I can say is that /. got trolled again.

    33. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      I think the AMT theory is sound. One "alternative" could be to send signals as far-reaching as the North American-wide Colorado timeclock (er, NA doesn't not mean "the USA.") But, unlike a mere passive time signal it needs customization to avoid killing North American PC's like a doomsday EMP.

      So, in comes the role of 3G connections as unique signal providers, which cells already use. 3G coverage requires a monthly revenue stream which Intel would be paying. Since Amazon was the only company to give free radio internet* (3G?) Numerically, intel makes more chips than Amazon can hope to sell Kindles, so the scale of individual coverage would be a problem. It makes lots of sense that if the user has 3G coverage through whatever laptop they're given from work, then the CPU can enjoy the free ride.

      Though this Sandy Bridge tech raises my neck's back-hairs, it's likely they implement it wrong. For example, the lowjack tech mentioned elsewhere on this thread has a BIOS option to be disabled forever, even if you're not the IT crew. Lesson of the day? password protect your BIOS and use physical locks --don't trust your IT security to fancy new tech buzzwords.

      * IIRC, in the Kindle for potential profit from users viewing up-to-date e-book lists --though Wikipedia searches were also free or something.

    34. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the most part true. Malware writers/users will not be chearful about this feature, but I am sure the RIAA MPAA are.

    35. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

      "Actually, Kill-switch based malware is much less valuable in reality than other types of hacks. If this were a server processor, I could see the value in an enhanced remote server-kill. Because these are basic home-use processors though, remote kill viruses probably won't get much farther than proof-of-concept."

      Why not? There's plenty of viruses out there that serve to do nothing but destroy data or make the computer unusable. A lot of those are designed mainly to hurt home computers. Yes, a couple viruses are targeted at sabotage of competitor's machines (or nuclear processing facilities), but they're in the minority.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    36. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by tibit · · Score: 2

      How on Earth could that be insightful? The chipset needs all the hardware for a 3G connection. They won't be putting any of that in an avionics package. As for Ethernet: I'd presume avionics uses TTEthernet or somesuch -- this requires, AFAIK, custom hardware to access the wire; a bog-standard MII exposed by Sandy Bridge won't cut it IIRC.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    37. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by tibit · · Score: 1

      There's no money in such destructive viruses/malware, and it's really marginal. The malware you're most likely to experience is stuff that either extorts money, or steals credentials / personal info. There is a big market for such malware, and lots of money to be made running it.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    38. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by espiesp · · Score: 1

      If the new Kindle comes with free 3G internet to download books, I imagine intel could very easily roll any costs associated with network subscription into the price of the hardware.

    39. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by espiesp · · Score: 1

      This would also allow computers to easily connect to the net without an air card.

      Both of my computers already have CDMA 3G internet access built in. And they are old. So this feature is nothing new.

    40. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but that's built into the *computer*, not the *processor*. Its easy to put a 3G antenna on a computer... putting a 3G 'chipset' into the processor die, *and* a 3G antenna somehow? There's a reason you have processor chips, 3G chipsets, NIC chipsets, Video chipsets - its easier to re-use/mix different technologies - building all that onto one die is not only hard in terms of real-estate on the die itself, but then you have the issues of 3G RF 'noise' inside the chip itself... as if running several-micron sized 'conductors' with GHz frequencies isn't hard enough to design - lets put in a multi-Ghz radio transmitter/receiver into the same chip?!? Not very likely.

      Now, implementing such a feature in the bios boot code (on a machine with integrated 3G), halting the machine from booting... possible. But I ask you - if you have some feature in the processor to disable the processor somehow (under external command from the bios), ok, but, the processor is what *runs* the bios boot code... so how would it re-enable itself after?

    41. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Well, it finally gives us the technological basis for the "Fritz chip" that the geriatric pawn of the media cartels of the same name wanted back in the day. Progress!

      Don't worry, just as the TPM ultimately trusts the user, rather than hiding its secrets even from its owner, I'm sure this system is 100% aligned with the owner's interests and has no other uses...

    42. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They may well have added some 3G-related silicon; but the CPU is very much inside the "shielded to keep the FCC off our backs" compartment of basically all systems. I assume that they simply baked the necessary hooks into their CPU/chipset for the system to interact with the cell modem, even if turned "off" and brick itself if so ordered.

      Architecturally, I'm assuming that this builds on Intel's "Active Management" integrated service processor, which has been featured in mostly corporate models, with gradually increasing capabilities, for some years now.

    43. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I'd assume that(barring the existence of some sort of unlock-for-registered-owner mechanism, which wouldn't be impossible) the point isn't to help you, the one specific person whose laptop just got stolen; but to gradually phase "stealing laptops" out of the list of things that are economically viable by upping the odds that the thief will get nothing but a brick for their time...

    44. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by elfprince13 · · Score: 1

      or Cylons!

    45. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing. Nothing at all.

    46. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by kurokame · · Score: 1

      For starters, they're selling you a chip that they can find over 3G to forcibly deactivate it.

      Kill switch, hell. You had me at "find over 3G." Because NO ONE would EVER abuse that, right?

    47. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Rudeboy777 · · Score: 1

      The computer will be unusable, but the hard drive will still be there, full of your data!

      I'm glad to see you have come out of your 5-year coma. Let me welcome you back with a tale about encrypted laptop drives that have come into being in that time. Which would you like to hear about first -- hardware- or software-based options?

      --

      From hell's heart I fstab at /dev/hdc

    48. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by h00manist · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not a problem at all. It comes with a big label on it that says "FOR USE BY UNITED STATES ENEMIES ONLY - MADE IN CHINA". Then again, nobody quite knows what the hell does that mean.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    49. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by h00manist · · Score: 1

      Unless you are going after Iran or Wikileaks.

      Actually any kind of undercover work ideally should go undetected. Turning off a computer doesn't at all. Plus, the motherboard would just be replaced with little actual loss to the target. Penetration, sabotaging its operation, distorting expected results, with no apparent cause, is more like what they'd like. Perhaps this has other undocumented features, such as some sort of backdoor. That would be useful for the spooks, for undercover, sabotage type deals.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    50. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no idea what you're talking about. Intel Anti-Theft is used in conjunction with drive encryption.

    51. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      assuming your laptop thieft is a tech guru and knows the value of data and not a run of the mill thug looking to get his next fix by pawning it off.

    52. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by g0rAngA · · Score: 1

      If only there was a way to encrypt the contents of a hard drive...If there was such a thing, I might go so far as to call it something like...."Full Disk Encryption".

    53. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few screws later and the drive will be hooked up to another computer, with all your info ready for the picking!

      Let's hope that if my computer gets stolen it's a geek who takes it .. then my data will be safe!

    54. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Full disk software / hardware encryption has matured enough to reliably protect data from thieves. Not to mention that in the real world most laptop thieves couldn't care less about your personal or business data... they're looking to make money selling the hardware. These chips are about theft reduction through diminished rewards.

    55. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 1

      Most of the PC thefts are for resale, and not data

    56. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by ProfMobius · · Score: 1

      Not sure you can call someone unscrewing 4 screws a techguru...

      --
      EULA : By reading the above message, you agree that I now own your soul.
    57. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by tqk · · Score: 1

      You have no idea what you're talking about. Intel Anti-Theft is used in conjunction with drive encryption.

      You're correct, I didn't know that. So, did they do it right?

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    58. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Presumably this feature will be found in most if not all future Intel chips. How many people encrypt their harddrives?

    59. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      the point isn't to help you, the one specific person whose laptop just got stolen; but to gradually phase "stealing laptops" out of the list of things that are economically viable by upping the odds that the thief will get nothing but a brick for their time...

      That's exactly right (I'm very familiar with this technolgy). Intel's long-term goal is to make laptops an unattractive theft target, in the same way car stereo manufacturers have made car stereos unattractive theft targets. If you take it to the pawnshop / fence and it doesn't work, the fence won't buy it. Over time, thieves (even the dumb ones) will stop stealing laptops as it's not worth the effort.

      Or that's the idea, anyway.

    60. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or attacking a major business or just being a douche to millions.

      I could see a virus meant to do thing but kill computers being made for fun by some hacker with a chip on their shoulder.

      But for some reason, reading this kinda reminded me of an old virus I came across back in school a long time ago, sat down at the PC and the desktop icons ran away from the mouse and made you chase everything down. I got around it pretty easy, but I still spent a while sitting down and chasing them down just for fun, learned how to corner them in a corner of the screen and get them anyways too. That kinda killed the fun at that point cause it got too easy.

    61. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Idbar · · Score: 1

      You seem to forget that Intel also produces Solid State drives.

    62. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Botnets are much more lucrative in the malware world - processor uptime is much more valuable than processor downtime.

      Yes, however, this technology could be abused as a counter-disinfection defense.

      For example, a technician attempts to disinfect the machine, installs new software that cleans the primary payload.

      However, as a secondary payload, a failsafe mechanism re-installs the malware and invokes CHIP-KILL, upon detecting that a disinfection has been attempted, in order to punish.

    63. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by mysidia · · Score: 0

      Sounds like Intel is trying to muscle in on Microsoft's turf.

      Not really... Microsoft already has that turf well cornered.

      You don't even need any 3G network connectivity for a Windows machine to be bricked, you just need to power it on, and it randomly happens, unpredictably.

    64. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Nothing ... because I'm sure that Intel can turn it back on remotely (for a price). Hmm, I wonder what they're charging to turn it off once it is reported stolen?

      Price to turn it off = One arm and One leg

      Price to turn it back on = One arm and One leg

      * 3G Network Data Service required to "turn it off" or "turn it back on"; service must be purchased and SIM card installed in advance, additional fees apply, based on 3G data network service providers' available data plans and monthly rates.

    65. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Hrm, doesn't this cut both ways too? After all, one of the things police do is "live analysis" that requires a system be running (they use power bars, suicide power cables and UPSes to ensure a system stays on). Seems like if this is the case, the kill signal can be sent and live analysis prevented.

      After all, analying a live system and yield evidence that a cold system can't...

    66. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Presumably this feature will be found in most if not all future Intel chips. How many people encrypt their harddrives?

      Per TFS, the feature only provides the option for the user to configure the chip to a mode that allows a remote kill. I suspect that the proportion of users that will do that will be fairly similar to those that use whole-disk encryption.

    67. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      What good is a remote CPU kill-switch, apart from taking revenge at the people who stole your PC?

      You're not going to get your PC back; they'll just throw it away.
      They still have access to all your harddisks if they just hook them up to a different PC.
      They won't know in advance what CPU is inside the PC, so it won't deter anybody from stealing.
      It'd probably be easy to work around by simply shielding the 3G signal from getting to the CPU or just disconnecting whatever part of the motherboard serves as the antenna.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    68. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      Skynet is frightening, almost worse than a human controlled central network which we are building anyway.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    69. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Synonymous+Homonym · · Score: 2

      The global code to shut down all chips at once is 666, and can be sent from any cell phone.
      Welcome to the stone age.

    70. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iran could just turn ban the 3G networks as a preventive measure.

    71. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It's not always about the money. Sometimes it's about the thrill of destruction.

    72. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It depends on how important they belive the evidence on the computer is. Sometimes they'll do all that. More often they'll dump the RAM first - you can do that through a firewire port - and then just kill the power. But, unless you are either involved in a computer-related crime or they believe you used the computer to run your criminal empire, they'll just pull the plug out. Computer forensics techs are expensive - they are in very high demand right now, as a result of a series of crackdowns on internet pedophiles.

    73. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      Searching for: "anti-theft 3.0"

      Google: ~6,700 hits
      Bing: ~96,000 hits

      Seems like more than speculation to me.

    74. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by xnpu · · Score: 1

      Exactly. And who guarantees us that the kill switch can't be flipped back somehow to revive the CPU?

    75. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by itsdapead · · Score: 1

      If the hard drive is securely encrypted then why bother to kill the CPU? Any benefit in doing that has to be weighed against the risk of having a remote kill switch.

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    76. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by baileydau · · Score: 2

      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune

      Your sig is remarkably apt for this story ...

      --
      Ever stop to think ... and forget to start again?
    77. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Seth+Kriticos · · Score: 1

      Seems you happened to miss the trend, big data centers are built with cheep commodity hardware, and the workload is distributed by software.

      I know Google is doing this, they manufacture a container with hundreds of these. They don't even bother to replace failing parts, only when a specific percentage of nodes goes down, the container is replaced. Basically zero maintenance.

      Theoretically it would be possible to kill an entire data center, or a big chunk of it anyway, with the master codes for only a few production batch serial numbers.

      I think this will really worry some folks.

    78. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by vagabond_gr · · Score: 1

      The only useful scenario I could possibly imagine is that you use hard-disk encryption and your laptop is stolen while it's on, so the key is in memory. If you can shut it down the disk becomes useless.

      But this is science finction (and there are known
      attacks for this scenario anyway). The kill switch idea sounds at best stupid, at worst goverment sponsored.

    79. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by jimicus · · Score: 1

      This isn't aimed at domestic users, and won't be found (or at least won't be wired up to work) in domestic PCs where every penny that can be shaved off cost is.

      Initially, it'll wind up in PCs aimed at the business market. These have existed as separate product lines from most of the major vendors for some time, and frequently come with remote management at a hardware level and a much better warranty in exchange for rather more cash. I can see this being sold to businesses in industries where they're more-or-less legally obliged to take every reasonable step to protect data.

    80. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by mea_culpa · · Score: 2

      Or a certain US Senator wants to remotely destroy your computer for downloading a MP3.

    81. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by msormune · · Score: 1

      No manufacturer would use consumer level microprocessors in airplanes or any other mission-critical machine.

    82. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by JamesP · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, they put worse things onto airplanes and mission critical systems...

      I'm not joking, unfortunately.

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    83. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by jgrahn · · Score: 4, Informative

      The good news is that the story is either missing some important information or just plain wrong. It seems REALLY unlikely Intel would build a complete 3G radio and antenna into the CPU just for that.

      It's plain wrong. Someone commented over at TFA:

      Read the Intel White Paper at the above link: The chip can accept an encrypted SMS message IF the computer is equipped with a 3G card. The radio receiver is not in the chip itself, only the ability to accept and act on the encrypted SMS message of an external 3G card receives the message.

    84. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Most thieves don't care about your data.

      --
      No sig today...
    85. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Don't know about the virus writers but the RIAA is probably popping champagne corks as we read this...

      --
      No sig today...
    86. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Bad_Feeling · · Score: 1

      It can be lucrative, however, when the malware starts threatning that if you don't pay up some cash it will format your hard drive and brick your cpu.

      --
      Disclaimer: On the other hand, I am kind of a psycho...
    87. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 2
    88. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What could possibly go wrong.

      We could get a completely BULLSHIT summary and a bunch of paranoia and speculation.
      Here's from the actual brief (http://antitheft.intel.com/Libraries/Documents/Intel_R_Anti-Theft_Technology_-_Technology_Brief.sflb.ashx)

      I have boldfaced the relevant portions:

      Notification via encrypted SMS text message. Alternatively, if the laptop is 3G-enabled, the central server can send it an encrypted SMS text message to enter theft mode. (For this option, the laptop need not be connected to the Internet, but it must be within range of a 3G network and its operating system must be functioning .)

      I see a lot of comments through this article about alternate, more effective systems. Most are talking about using passwords, encryption keys, BIOS locks, keep-alive timer's to a rigged "dead man's" switch that will break the encryption key, and so on. Guess what- this does ALL of that and more.

      So in summary, there is NOTHING 3G about the CPU at all. The CPU provides the hardware level support for a comprehensive security system, but the 3G is not on the CPU, you have to add a hardware component to the system.

      (For those too lazy to follow the link, here's the text from the .pdf)

      Local and remote detection mechanisms
      Intel AT includes several hardware-based detection mechanisms that can prompt the laptop to enter theft mode and lock down. Detection of potential loss or theft can occur based on local policy, or via a remote connection over the Internet to the theft-management server. Hardware-based detection and trigger mechanisms include:

        Excessive login attempts. The laptop enters theft mode after an IT-specified number of login failures in the PBA screen, and responds as specified by IT policy.

        Missed check-ins. Using the built-in timer, an IT administrator can define intervals at which the laptop must check in with the central server via the Internet. If a check-in is missed, the local timer will expire and the laptop will immediately go into theft mode, even if it is not connected to the Internet.

        Notification from the central server. If the loss or theft of the PC is reported by an individual, the IT administrator can flag the laptop in the central server. The next time the laptop connects to the central server, the central server can send it an encrypted message (the poison pill) via wired or wireless LAN and put it into theft mode. (Note: the central server can be hosted on the Internet to allow communication with laptops outside the corporate firewall.)

    89. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by tibit · · Score: 2

      :)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    90. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Sloppy · · Score: 2

      Actually any kind of undercover work ideally should go undetected. Turning off a computer doesn't at all.

      Yes, turning it off is very detectable. What's funny here is that Intel is telling everyone up front, that this CPU has a covert/side channel. That's what they're admitting. They're also telling everyone that the one thing it does, is turn it off. Both of these statements are plausible. Are both of these statements complete?

      What else does this covert or side channel enable?

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    91. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by rarkian · · Score: 1

      Don't be too sure. The bios firmware can have a built in instruction to wake it up and grab required software and follow instructions of it's master. These instructions can include encrypt or erase entire drive. This already exists since 2008 but the software (made by Absolute) is currently Windows only. But count on the gov to have versions for other OS's.

    92. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or unless China goes after the US again.

    93. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      The only people who can 'turn it on' are ISVs who have been configured by Intel. These ISVs and the anti-lock chipset have a private-key pair. Only an authorized ISV can manage the anti-theft chipset and/or lock a device. So if your device is stolen you log into your management console and send a lock command to your device. When it's recovered, you enter your recovery code to unlock it.

    94. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      If my laptop is stolen, how the hell is disabling it remotely going to help me?

      Here's a one-minute video that explains how it helps you:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u07ReT5jxds

    95. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      All the more reason not to buy systems based on this technology!

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    96. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't a thief simply install a replacement processor? This doesn't sound like much extra security to me. It does sound like an easy way to disconnect large numbers of people whenever a government gets the urge.

    97. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by dbcad7 · · Score: 1

      Maybe another type of remote "kill switch" that deals with the thieves would be better.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    98. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mandatory list:

      • Pre-DDOS kill switch collection.
      • Blackmail, shell to Chinese/AlAl Qaeda//,whatever, have fun with Anonymous Gang, ...
      • Profit!
      • If Blackmail Then wait and loop
    99. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by zellfaze · · Score: 1

      I can see this being something an oppressive government could use to "protect" the people.

      "All known Terrorists won't be able to use a computer."

      Perhaps things won't go quite like that, but I can still see this turning out bad...

    100. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      and any chip could be killed by leaving a sms detonated bomb next to it. that way the cpu doesn't need to stay on either.. ..just the cellphone taped to it has to stay powered.

      and because of needing that extra, this is a non-feature. you could build such thing right next to a 386 just as well next to a sandy bridges. just attach the cellphone part so that it'll fry the cpu.

      bloat features, made by bloat architechts, made for non-existing use case, marketed by bloat marketers. it's a marketer trying to spin an old feature as a new. "users can configure blabal", well doh they can, they always could provided that they brought the cellphone etc to the table.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    101. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      I doubt it would be limited to that-- Chinese-own'zd corporations can perform DoS-type sabotage on American servers right when there's a crucial moment like a Senate vote, for example.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    102. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by jandersen · · Score: 1

      What could possibly go wrong.

      A number of things, of course, but since one needs to be able to send a kill signal to each individual processor, without disturbing any other processor, I think most of the things that can go wrong will be along the lines of not being able to reach the damned thing when you need to.

      I have to say, I wouldn't mind being able to kill of the phones or laptops that I have lost; or better, a real kill switch that makes the damned thing explode :-)

    103. Re:A global remote kill switch in our computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? The computer will be unusable (unless the thief wants to foot for a new CPU and motherboard) but the hard drive will still be there, full of your data! A few screws later and the drive will be hooked up to another computer, with all your info ready for the picking!

      you mean you don't have the whole drive encrypted yet?

  2. something missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    is there an on switch?

    1. Re:something missing by stumblingblock · · Score: 2

      Doubtful there would be an "on" switch. Nobody realistically expects to get a computer back, this just allows them to put a big sticker on the laptop saying, "if you steal it, it wont work". Thieves wont care.

    2. Re:something missing by tftp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      this just allows them to put a big sticker on the laptop saying, "if you steal it, it wont work".

      I can achieve this very thing by starting the CPU at 1 MHz clock rate, and until a certain 64-bit response is written into a register (calculated from a 64-bit challenge) the CPU will stay at 1 MHz forever. This will allow you to start the BIOS and enter the necessary code. And once the code is in the CPU switches to a normal clock.

      You can have variations of this method too. For example, the computer powers up at its normal speed, but starts a timer, and if within 10 minutes (or something) the registers aren't programmed correctly then the CPU clock drops, making the computer useless.

      And you can have many ways to "unlock" the CPU. You can have a fingerprint reader or your Windows password doing it for you. You can have a USB device plugged in that has a time-dependent unlock key. You can have a network protocol that checks that the computer is pinging from an approved IP range and then issues the permission to unlock. In all these cases there will be no simple unlock code stored anywhere; Windows password is not readable (only resettable), and external devices can calculate the response based on the challenge. The OS may have the algorithm (which is well known) but lacking the key it would be unable to convert the challenge into the correct response.

      And, by the way, this invention cannot be patented now :-)

    3. Re:something missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Windows password is not readable (only resettable)

      http://ophcrack.sourceforge.net/

    4. Re:something missing by pantherace · · Score: 1

      Actually, this wouldn't work on most modern processors.

      Due to interaction with peripherals, there is a minimum, to have your bios able to work and talk to them, depending on the interface, for example, Hypertransport on early AMDs didn't allow a CPU less than 800MHz, or wacky stuff started to happen. Intel would have the same sorts of problems.

    5. Re:something missing by tftp · · Score: 1

      Due to interaction with peripherals, there is a minimum

      Ok, perhaps. But the proposal #2 doesn't depend on the fact that the CPU keeps running after the timeout expires. It may well stop, just like that "kill switch" does.

      The difference is that Intel's method depends on successful delivery of negative authorization, when the hardware is already stolen and under control of thieves. It should be understood that any industrial spy would know *exactly* what to do; perhaps the notebook will be simply placed into a shielded laptop case - a low-tech solution that defeats an expensive infrastructure.

      The proposed method depends on positive authorization, delivered over proper channels. If the authorization doesn't come then the computer stops. The thief can't do anything about it. If, for example, the authentication is handled in the pre-boot environment then the CPU won't even boot the OS. It may stay in BIOS, though; but with TPM blocking HDD decryption it's not a problem.

      Computers used only on the LAN can have Ethernet authenticators. Computers issued to road warriors can have USB authenticators; they are limited in time and need to be "reset" every day. And it would be also possible to call the help desk, tell them who you are (so that they believe you) then read the long number that the BIOS shows you, enter the long number that they tell you, and you are good to go. That is for emergencies, of course.

    6. Re:something missing by jimicus · · Score: 1

      The difference is that Intel's method depends on successful delivery of negative authorization, when the hardware is already stolen and under control of thieves. It should be understood that any industrial spy would know *exactly* what to do; perhaps the notebook will be simply placed into a shielded laptop case - a low-tech solution that defeats an expensive infrastructure.

      Where's the XKCD comic showing the security nerds imagination (laptops being regularly stolen for industrial espionage) versus reality (laptops being left behind by forgetful executives and/or being stolen from an open vehicle by a drug addict seeking a hit) when you need it?

      The security is there to prevent negative legal/media repercussions in the event of the stolen laptop containing confidential data.

    7. Re:something missing by JamesP · · Score: 1

      Well, at 1Mhz you can run linux...

      well, ok, OpenBSD :P

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    8. Re:something missing by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

      It is unlikely you could run this CPU at 1 MHz. Some circuitry (domino logic, for example), has a minimum frequency of operation, most likely around -10% of the labeled frequency. So 1000x slower probably wouldn't work on any bleeding-edge CPU from the past 15 years.

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    9. Re:something missing by tftp · · Score: 1

      most likely around -10% of the labeled frequency

      Processors for mobile applications can change the clock far more than 10%. But there is a better solution. Leave the clock alone, just don't do anything useful in most of the clock cycles. Here is a piece of code that would fetch the instruction this way:

      if (do_useful_work) {
      instruction <= cache;
      ++ip;
      } else {
      instruction <= NOP;
      }

      By controlling the duty cycle of the 'do_useful_work' signal you throttle the effective speed of the CPU.

    10. Re:something missing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it can –by you!

    11. Re:something missing by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      "And, by the way, this invention cannot be patented now :-)"

      Oh like prior art has ever stopped a patent from being granted. Maybe in the old days, but certainly not since the 1980s or so.

    12. Re:something missing by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

      Times have changed. 1Mhz will cause the PC to puke on itself during post, I guarantee it.

      Do 25mhz. The PC will be utterly unusable, but the BIOS setup page will be able to redraw in less than 15 seconds.

    13. Re:something missing by the_enigma_1983 · · Score: 1

      And, by the way, this invention cannot be patented now :-)

      Would you be willing to put money on this never being patented? The USPTO have granted many patents with obvious prior art.

  3. On-disk data by grantek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Cue rampant predictions of abuse, but I wonder if it can be combined with an on-chip encryption key to make full-disk encryption more effective (if complete control is given to the user)

    1. Re:On-disk data by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Yes. Part of the kill command will be to encrypt the HD with a key sent with the kill command.

      For a small fee, you can gain access to this key.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:On-disk data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Intel had this functionality, as part of AT-D. Here's the Intel Technology Journal article (from 2008) describing their "DAR" (Data at Rest) protection technologies, which are fundamentally whole disk encryption with hardware protected keying:

      http://www.intel.com/technology/itj/2008/v12i4/7-paper/6-support.htm

      I recently went to find a chipset which implemented it, but a colleague in Intel said that some of their major ISV's - and I'm going to guess here that their recent acquisition was the primary complainant - protested loudly to Intel. So my contact said that they quietly dropped it.

      The current technologies which sit under the AT-D branding are here:

      http://www.intel.com/technology/anti-theft/

      Like most things Intel, the grand claims are never matched by the actual detail of their implementation.

    3. Re:On-disk data by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 2

      and as an added bonus your encryption key will be sent for secure storage at the NSA. If you lose or forget your key the NSA have a handy backup ready for you. Think of the children.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    4. Re:On-disk data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is exactly how it is intended to be used. The actual article linked is garbage and doesn't explain how the system works or what it does.

      The anti-theft system is designed to integrate with the chipset's hardware crypto-processor and keystore. This permits full-disk encryption, where the key is held in a hardware key management system and released by the user's pass-phrase. If full-disk encryption is not desired, then the security module can instead cause the BIOS to halt before booting the OS. However, it would be expected that most companies using the system would also utilize the full-disk encryption process.

      Control messages can then be sent from the IT dept to the hardware key management system - either via the OS, or a limited pre-boot environment. Periodically, the KMS will connect via an available network connection with the IT's authorization servers. If the server replies with 'deny', then the KMS will lock down and refuse to deliver any keys, rendering the HD unreadable. Similarly, the KMS can be programmed to timeout - so that simply disconnecting from all networks will not be sufficient, after 24 hours (or a week, or whatever) the system locks down. This allows computers to be locked down, even if the user has the passphrase (e.g. the passphrase has been compromised, or the user has is no longer authorized).

      What this article is talking about it an out-of-band messaging system over GSM. In the event that a laptop has a cellular datacard, then IT can send an SMS to the card, so that when the laptop is next powered up, the KMS will immediately enter lock-down mode.

      The beauty of this system is that even if the system is 'bricked' and can't boot because disk encryption key isn't available - the pre-boot environment is still capable of receiving an 'unlock' message via SMS or via internet, allowing a lost laptop to be reactivated remotely once recovered.

  4. Laputan Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I AM NOT A MACHI--

    *detonates*

  5. Remote Kill by godatum · · Score: 2

    That's good.... for hackers!

    1. Re:Remote Kill by Stumbles · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lol yeah really. Then they can hold your machine for ransom, once paid they MIGHT turn it back on.

      --
      My karma is not a Chameleon.
    2. Re:Remote Kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that were to occur to a prominent client even once, Intel would be pretty much forced to remove the feature forev... Uh...
      I guess I'd better start working on it then, eh?

  6. It's not paranoia! by breakzoidbeg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Knowing right out of the gate that some one else COULD have access to this kill feature is unnerving at best.

    1. Re:It's not paranoia! by should_be_linear · · Score: 1

      From Intel technical paper: "If you use only Fair and Balanced (tm) data sources and your condom never brake, there is nothing in this feature to worry about."

      --
      839*929
    2. Re:It's not paranoia! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep imagine a metasploit module for this.

    3. Re:It's not paranoia! by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      tell me more about these braking condoms, are they shoe or disc brakes? Hydraulic or pneumatic? also, I'd like a subscription to your newsletter.

  7. wut by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 2

    Why does this have to be IN the processor? Intel needs to calm down with the paranoid shit and just make processors.

    1. Re:wut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the processor can't be desoldered and replaced in 15 minutes with a reflow kit, before you get a chance to send the kill code. If you're gonna have it at all, it's most effective in the most essential and hardest to mess with components, and the CPU's it.

      Of course, all that still doesn't matter, since you need a signal to blow it; it's trivial to pop the 3G antenna, then recover the device's data at your leisure.

    2. Re:wut by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      vs say sealed in a blob of glue thats hard/tricky to remove on a motherboard?
      Intel wants to sell chips with many new features (pure speed is getting $$$ to offer), so this aspect of the chip/near the main chip makes Intel look creative.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re:wut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it makes a lot of sense to put it in the processor. If it requires a message encrypted with a private key that (presumably) would only be accessible to Intel, and the public key is there on the chip, it is both unbreakable and entirely secure from malicious activation, even if someone fully reverse-engineers the processor, unless whoever at Intel leaks the private key. Of course, I have no idea how it actually works...

    4. Re:wut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if intel decides perm. phase out the chip, just signal "deactivate".

    5. Re:wut by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Uh huh...hey you remember the XKCD comic where they showed reality VS fantasy of cracking passwords? You are falling into that trap friend. Most laptops, like most anything else that is stolen, is stolen by junkies. Junkies by their very nature aren't the brightest of creatures, and sure as hell ain't gonna be pulling off the fancy tricks you're talking about. No what will happen if this switch gets popular is a hell of a lot of unscrupulous PC repair shops is gonna have a windfal of spare parts to sell on eBay. Screens, RAM, HDDs, disc drives, hell it will be like Xmas for them.

      So I hate to burst your bubble, but thieves don't do major hacks like that. A junkie will try to turn whatever they get their filthy hands on ASAP for a fix, first to their fellow junkies/dealers, and then to pawn shops, flea markets, anywhere they think they can turn it. Since the machines will be "dead" and thus can't be sold to dealers or other civilians they'll quickly learn which repair shop down the street doesn't ask questions about "broken" laptops and that will be the end of that.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    6. Re:wut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you know, put the computer in a bag lined with conduct electricity and construct a faraday cage, then do whatever they want once they're in a bunker or something. This really has one purpose: using on company and government laptops that carry sensitive data. Those things rarely get stolen by teams of crack hardware hackers, but get left on park benches every other day.

    7. Re:wut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the processor can't be desoldered and replaced in 15 minutes

      Right, because all of us check up on our computers every 15 minutes to make sure they haven't been stolen.

    8. Re:wut by hot+soldering+iron · · Score: 1

      It's not just junkies that don't bother cracking the encryption, the FBI just admitted in a case that they broke into a Russian mafia member's house, and found a long-ass password written down, and used that to crack into his machine to get the data. They have sufficient resources that they could "possibly" brute force crack the encryption, but even they find that it's much more efficient to just look for passwords that are written down.

      When Gawker Media had their user data stolen, someone commented that he really didn't find his account at Lifehacker.com to be of high value to him, and didn't use a "strong" password to protect it. He ran a test using Ophcrack, and found that even "strong" passwords without dictionary words, mixed case, numerics, and punctuation marks, were being cracked in minutes. And don't ever think that if your data is *really* needed by "them" quickly, that they won't use a "lead pipe decrypter" on you. I know people in training for jobs as Federal agents, and they are more than ready to kick your ass for being a hassle to them. If they kick your ass hard enough, it's permanent, and you won't even be able to say "police brutality", let alone fight the "resisting arrest" charge.

      --
      When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
  8. And without owner's consent? by piotru · · Score: 1

    Of course, Intel guarantees there is only one kill switch and it can only be used with the owner's consent ;-)

    1. Re:And without owner's consent? by Lord+Dreamshaper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      sure, unless they have a somewhat sketchy cease & desist from the RIAA/MPAA...or if they simply don't want to piss off the feds (wikileaks anyone?). I'm sure they'll apologize later if they were wrong...as long as you can afford the lawyers to prove you were wrong...

      --
      When all of your wishes have been granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed - Marilyn Manson
    2. Re:And without owner's consent? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      This is the core of the problem with "Trusted Computing", usable to disable or enable software and hardware features. The technoloy is workable and can provide reasonable grades of encryption and especially DRM, for which it was clearly designed. But ownership of the master keys is a joke: they sit in Microsoft's hands, with no published corporate or legal policy on when or how they can be obtained by governments or corporate partners. In other words, it's a good lock, but Microsoft always has the spare keys.

  9. I know what I'm getting for christmas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    An AMD proccesor.

    1. Re:I know what I'm getting for christmas... by ceeam · · Score: 2

      Too early. Both AMD and Intel are at the end of their cycles this Christmas. Which is sad, of course, as people would be buying soon-to-be-obsolete computers without realizing that.

    2. Re:I know what I'm getting for christmas... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1, Informative

      All computers are obsolete.

    3. Re:I know what I'm getting for christmas... by T-Bone-T · · Score: 0

      That just means I'll get my i7 for less than you got yours AND it will be faster. Go ahead and call us stupid.

    4. Re:I know what I'm getting for christmas... by BigFootApe · · Score: 2

      The word everyone is looking for would be obsolescent. Just because a newer processor comes out, it doesn't mean that the old ones stop working en masse.

      The statement isn't even true, however. Not as long as the older gear is still useful and the inconvenience of replacement outweighs the advantages.

    5. Re:I know what I'm getting for christmas... by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      "If you can buy it, it's already out of date "

      However, having recently upgraded from Intel Core2 E8300 to an AMD Athlon II X4 640 (and corresonding mb), I can say that it is still very much worth the money to do so.

      What new technology, chips, etc do you see coming?

    6. Re:I know what I'm getting for christmas... by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      The word everyone is looking for would be obsolescent. Just because a newer processor comes out, it doesn't mean that the old ones stop working en masse.

      The statement isn't even true, however. Not as long as the older gear is still useful and the inconvenience of replacement outweighs the advantages.

      How true. I've still go a lot of /. comments to write using my existing hardware.

  10. As if...! by Burnhard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it me or is this one of the dumbest ideas ever to come out of Intel?

    1. Re:As if...! by Mysteray · · Score: 2

      It's not you.

    2. Re:As if...! by gukin · · Score: 2

      No, the dumbest idea coming out of Intel was to give exclusive licensing to Rambus for all future processors, no wait, it was the P-4, no, wait it was . . .

      Never mind, you're right.

    3. Re:As if...! by shekmalhen · · Score: 2

      Let's not forget another gem from Intel: PSN. It had good intentions: improving security on the Internet by permitting websites to query the CPU serial number and thus, identifying your computer uniquely.

    4. Re:As if...! by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      They've done worse, and let's not forget about the ongoing saga of the Celeron.

    5. Re:As if...! by BLToday · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... I'm trying to think of dumber things: Itanium, Rambus, 486SX/487, Pentium bug when they tried to save a little silicon space, and selling XScale. It's hard to save if this is the dumbest thing but it certainly is up there.

    6. Re:As if...! by toddestan · · Score: 1

      The first generation Celeron without L2 cache?

    7. Re:As if...! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      F00F

    8. Re:As if...! by JamesP · · Score: 2

      you kids...

      The dumbest idea EVER from Intel was segmented memory space for 8086

      THAT set computing back in the PC world YEARS
      THAT is why G3/G4 (ok, the G4) processors run circles around the PC
      THAT's why we were stuck with Windows blue screens until the 2000's

      AND Intel processors still don't calculate sines/cosines properly.

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    9. Re:As if...! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes me wonder what their smoking over at Intel

  11. All your data are belonging to thief! by edfardos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Killing the cpu just means they have to transfer the drive to a new laptop in order to steal all your information? That's one whole extra step! That's innovation. --edfardos

    1. Re:All your data are belonging to thief! by phozz+bare · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How many laptop thieves give a crap about the information in the machine? In 99% of the cases all they want is to sell it, as quickly as possible.

    2. Re:All your data are belonging to thief! by tftp · · Score: 1

      How many laptop thieves give a crap about the information in the machine?

      Only smart ones. Besides, they only need to "know a man" who takes care of all that. They don't need to have any technical expertise. That man not only wipes the HDD unrecoverably clean (which makes identification of the stolen item hard,) he also will drop a pirated OS into it, so that the laptop is ready for sale. The same expert may pay for the data if it's of interest (like some company's projects, or just a bunch of your Quicken accounts.) But just the "HDD service" should be worth a lot to a common thief.

      In 99% of the cases all they want is to sell it, as quickly as possible.

      Then the ex-owner of the laptop must beat the clock in discovering the loss and activating the kill switch. Otherwise the thief will sell the laptop before you even realize that you lost it. There is no reason for him to hold onto a stolen item, and he doesn't need to use Google to find a fence :-)

  12. why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    um. maybe I'm being thick... but what's the point? Just to make it worthless and thereby make it less worth stealing?

    why not just have a normal processor and a sticker that says "super dooper anti theft kill switch". After all it works for cars, no-one ever steals them anymore!

  13. Tracking? Remote data access? by LWolenczak · · Score: 4, Informative

    Anyone else getting the vibe that since this thing will have a 3g connection on the backend, that it can be misused by others(governments) to track and remotely control/access your device. Geeeeeeeeee. This does not sound like a good idea... Well unless your the TSA.

    1. Re:Tracking? Remote data access? by HungryHobo · · Score: 1, Informative

      pretty much every phone has similar systems.
      phones can be turned on remotely, have components turned on and even place a call at the behest of whoever has the right keys.

      unless you physically take out the battery your phone could be transmitting everything you say already.
      http://news.cnet.com/2100-1029_3-6140191.html

      of course it will be misused eventually but such tech isn't new, it's been around for years.

    2. Re:Tracking? Remote data access? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^ What HungryHobo said. I've never understood why so many people would buy cell phones that ultimately are NOT under their control. What's present in those things puts even the most paranoid view of upcoming PC anti-privacy technology to shame. Yet people buy them buy the billions...

      If people actually gave a shit about this, and did NOT buy them for that reason, I guarantee within 6 months the market would be flooded with phones that gave the purchaser the ability to fully control the software stack.

      But no, I guess the potential for massive privacy violations is OK when the computer fits in your pocket and you often have voice conversations over it, but much smaller ones are a problem if the computer does not fit in your pocket.

      {shrug} People are weird.

    3. Re:Tracking? Remote data access? by dabadab · · Score: 3, Informative

      Please stop repeating this stupid myth - I mean, you could have at least read the article you have linked. While it was clearly written by technically uneducated journalist, you should have realized that the article discusses two, entirely different techniques:
      1. The roving bug thing: in this case the cell phone's electronics is not used at all (with the probable exception of the battery): a conventional bug is simply hidden in the phone's housing.
      2. The remotely activated microphone: it requires some application that runs in the background unnoticed (and, of course, it functions only if the phone is switched on), so it requires a smartphone or perhaps some wicked CMDA feature.

      --
      Real life is overrated.
    4. Re:Tracking? Remote data access? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's bullshit. As far as I understand it, they just used OMA-DM carrier software provisioning to upload a custom program to the cellphone, that records everything and allows remote control. When user presses the power button, it only fakes a shutdown and doesn't really shut down the phone, only the screen. And when the user presses the power button again, they turn the screen on and display a fake start-up animation even though the phone had been running and recording all the time. This only works if the phone has been factory configured to use the carriers OMA-DM servers and accept firmware/software from them, which is the case for at least some providers in the US. If the phone is really off, they can't turn it on, also if you bought an unlocked cell phone from someone who is not a carrier, it's not possible to use OMA-DM software provisioning to install that FBI bug.

      At least Verizon Wireless uses over the air software/firmware provisioning. I remember some article where people complained when some Verizon crapware suddenly appeared on their phones.

    5. Re:Tracking? Remote data access? by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      So, how many smartphones don't come bundled with carrier added applications? Unless your smartphone can be flashed with another OS, these apps cannot be removed. Even then, can you really trust an alternate that you downloaded off the net?

      Carriers have already proven their willingness to sell out their customers. So have software developers.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    6. Re:Tracking? Remote data access? by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/12/remotely_eavesd_1.html

      even schneier tends to fall on the side of it all being software.
      so no.
      It's not a myth.

      for the last 10 years every phone I've had, even the non-smartphones have had a respectable amount of software.

      perhaps if you carry a brick from the 1980's you might not need to worry about this.

    7. Re:Tracking? Remote data access? by tibit · · Score: 1

      Theoretically you're right, but in practice it's solid bullshit when you think of voice-bandwidth tranmissions. Periodic GPS updates can sneak by undetected without a receiver and protocol analyzer, but voice transmission is easy to detect with very low tech.

      It's simple to check whether the phone is really transmitting with enough bandwidth to handle voice data. GSM protocol is very, very quiet -- a dormant phone is supposed to check in with the base station only periodically. Put it next to an amplified speaker or somesuch where you'll hear the buzzing (RF envelope) when the transmitter is on. See, or rather, hear, for yourself.

      I use Sony Noise Canceling headphones at work, and they are great for listening to my Tracfone's transmitted signal envelope. I hear a short bzzt every couple of minutes. Were this phone transmitting anything other that periodic GPS updates, I'd know about it, instantly. Heck, if someone calls me, I know about it before the phone even rings.

      I presume other digital cell systems behave similarly. They won't be transmitting all the time or else the battery will die a quick death. When they do transmit, you can easily know about.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    8. Re:Tracking? Remote data access? by tibit · · Score: 1

      Re 2: Phones don't really have a physical on-off switch that disconnects the battery from the electronics. The main CPU is always working, although when the phone is OFF, it's in a sleep mode, and a keypress awakens it from it via an interrupt. It'd be quite trivial to have almost any phone, even a non-smartphone, have a mode that can be enabled when the phone is on the network, that will make it only pretend that it's off. It'd then keep the baseband chip running and transmit what the microphone picks up, even though the display is OFF and it looks like the phone is dead.

      Of course in many cases it'd be trivial to detect: not only the phone could get noticeably warm, but you could overhear the transmitter with most household electronics that have an amplifier and a speaker. They are good RF envelope demodulators.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    9. Re:Tracking? Remote data access? by spitek · · Score: 1

      That was the very first thing that came to mind! Hungry - yeah your right about the phones but dammit I want them to have to do a little more work then run my name through a data base to be able to remotely execute code on my system on my nx laptop!! This whole bit about a rumor is simply naive or purposeful misinformation. so it requires a smartphone or perhaps some wicked CMDA feature... wicked CMDA feature? umm.. there is a data connection to all modern phones, even non smart phones can serf the web these days, patriot act, HELLO! But yes smart phones would be the easiest. If anyone at any decent level in any part of law enforcement wanted to read all your text messages and get your gps location, bet it's as simple as filling out a form. Can they use it in court?? probably not, but that's not the point. I see this as an extreme risk, surely someone will figure out how to disable this feature and publish it. If your someone that says to all that, I have nothing to hide then consider the fact that if anyone can get a 3g connection the CMOS/BIOS level then someone else will be able to as well. Then it's not rocket science to inject code into the guest OS. Brilliant Intel! Besides it wont stop the theft only piss off the thief. Don't let your laptop get stolen and encrypt your disk if you want you data safe.

    10. Re:Tracking? Remote data access? by Hamsterdan · · Score: 2

      Well, could take out the battery from our iPho... oh wait...

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    11. Re:Tracking? Remote data access? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It would be very easy to write a phone app that turned it into a bug, and even to secretly install it onto someone's phone if you can get access to it. I imagine the bug's presence would be given away by the suddenly much diminished battery life.

    12. Re:Tracking? Remote data access? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, could take out the battery from our iPho... oh wait...

      I've never understood the reasons for non-removable battery in iPhone, before perhaps (conspiracy hat on) now ;)

    13. Re:Tracking? Remote data access? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the plus side I think some clever people will use this to get free 3g. :) on the negative side I see a new really bad form of DoS.

    14. Re:Tracking? Remote data access? by Bad_Feeling · · Score: 1
      I agree. For years you can secure a system just by not plugging it into a network. Now with 3G, this will give law enforcement access to your system without needing an internet connection or any network connection at all. I am guessing they can turn the machine on as well remotely. Intel is stating that this is an anti theft features because it is the only possible way it could ever benefit the consumer. This idea hardly makes sense as a more reliable and slower connection other than 3G could accomplish the same task for less money.

      At the end of the day it is just a tool for enslavement and invasion of privacy. Anything you do on your PC can be remotely monitored and logged. Virtually all laptops today come with built in mics and webcams. You can tape over the camera but you can't truly disable the mic short of desoldering it and voiding your warranty. PCs are becoming much like the software that runs on them, they appear to provide some kind of service to the user but are turning into little more than tools for authorities to spy on and control the population.

      --
      Disclaimer: On the other hand, I am kind of a psycho...
    15. Re:Tracking? Remote data access? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Another big issue would be battery life. Afaict the batteries in phones are speced out on the assumption that the phone will spend most of it's time on "standby" with only low levels of communication (enough to allow the phone and network to track each other but not much more).

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    16. Re:Tracking? Remote data access? by Magada · · Score: 1

      The WAP standard defines three push content types:
              * Service Indication (SI) - send a notification to the WAP client.
              * Service Loading (SL) - cause the WAP client to load and execute a service.
              * Cache Operations (CO) - invalidate content objects in the WAP client cache.

      SL and CO content do not require user interaction, unlike SI.

      Most (if not all) phones support WAP these days.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    17. Re:Tracking? Remote data access? by tibit · · Score: 1

      Very true.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  14. May go back to AMD... by Guysdrinkingbeer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was looking forward to this CPU. Now, I am really going to research this. This may flip me back to AMD. I didn't like when Intel did the tracking on the PIII and the sound of this makes me just as uncomfortable.

    --
    Great people don't need people to complete them, great people complete other people. -- Matthew Pawlikowski.
    1. Re:May go back to AMD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realise that tracking feature is still in all current gen Pentium CPUs right?

    2. Re:May go back to AMD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. Unless you still think it's 1999 and the Coppermine Pentium III is Intel's state of the art.

    3. Re:May go back to AMD... by SirCyn · · Score: 1

      And how long before the processors call home with their current location or other juicy tidbits?

    4. Re:May go back to AMD... by tyrione · · Score: 1

      I was looking forward to this CPU. Now, I am really going to research this. This may flip me back to AMD. I didn't like when Intel did the tracking on the PIII and the sound of this makes me just as uncomfortable.

      This wasn't going to flip me to AMD. Bulldozer already did that for me.

    5. Re:May go back to AMD... by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      I just switch back to AMD (Athlon X4 640). The mb and processor cost about what the Intel processor with similar speed would have cost without the mb. YMMV.

    6. Re:May go back to AMD... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      It does look like a nice design, and we are all waiting for the smaller process size to bring AMD's high end performance back up to Intel level, but I am not quite sure that Bulldozer will be "outstanding."

      AMD seems to have decided that the FPU takes up too much space for the 16+ core future that they are planning, so each pair of cores shares a single "fatter" FPU than their current design (where each core has its own "thinner" FPU.)

      Bulldozer will destroy the i7 for Integer work. Mark my words on that. It looks like it will be able to top out at 12 integer (64-bit) operations per core per clock cycle if your loops are unrolled-for-parallelism.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    7. Re:May go back to AMD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think that with all the transistors and circuits in a modern cpu, modern chipset, etc, that they haven't sneaked a Serial number in somewhere in the Pentium 4 and all proceeding CPU's after the Pentium III came and gone? Who here honestly believes that the MAC address isn't an equally as useful unique identifier these days? Every single motherboard out there has a NIC and I bet you that 99% of the time it is used instead of using an additional PCI or PCI-X ethernet card. That right there is sufficient identifying information on its own, and is easily accessible in software thats been written since NIC's were first widely manufactured.... But the bigger question is who is using this information. Back in good old 1999, EPIC was requesting FOI releases about the use of Intel Serial numbers by government angencies, no doubt about privacy concerns. A serial number only needs to be a few hundred digits long inorder for it to correctly identify every single individual CPU out there, how hard exactly is it today for that to be done in a modern cpu where Cache's are Megabytes in size... The answer: not hard at all. I know some completely nuts conspiracy theorists still using Pentium II's and AMD Athlon XPs for this exact reason. The only way to be safely sure is to roll back all significant hardware to prehistoric times.

    8. Re:May go back to AMD... by freaxeh · · Score: 1

      Back in good old 1999, EPIC was requesting FOI releases about the use of Intel Serial numbers by government angencies, no doubt about privacy concerns.

      Actually it was 1993 when EPIC requested FOI.

    9. Re:May go back to AMD... by freaxeh · · Score: 1

      Back in good old 1999, EPIC was requesting FOI releases about the use of Intel Serial numbers by government angencies, no doubt about privacy concerns.

      Actually it was 1993 when EPIC requested FOI.

      Nevermind, it was 1993 when EPIC was concerned about the Clipper Chip installed in phone handsets.

  15. Or... by dosius · · Score: 1

    ...it could be used to remotely disable the computer on a government's whim, or when Inhell decides it's time to upgrade?

    -uso.

    --
    What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
  16. Great for governments by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Want to shut down the opposition's operations? Just disable their computers.

    Do. Not. Want.

    1. Re:Great for governments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way... I tagged this story "donotwant"

      Please join me.

    2. Re:Great for governments by Burz · · Score: 1

      This was the first thing that occurred to me. Its probably no coincidence that China recently surpassed the US in supercomputer rankings. Then again, computers have been used against the US government in other ways recently.

      I'd be worried that this new feature would be used against anyone not aligned with US government ad corporate interests.

    3. Re:Great for governments by SirCyn · · Score: 1

      Better for the CIA, triangulating your location based on your 3G connection should make finding enemies of the state a breeze.

  17. A better solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't they just hook it up to a nice big capacitor so it discharges 50,000 volts on command? It might not help you recover the computer but it would give you a little satisfaction.

  18. Viruses by Skapare · · Score: 1

    Viruses will be written to detect anti-virus code coming in and trip the kill switch as punishment for trying to remove the virus.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:Viruses by imroy · · Score: 1

      Or... a botnet could register the CPU code(s) with a database somewhere and disable the CPU(s) if that node hasn't been seen for a few days. Have a few cases gain public attention, soon the selfish and stupid hoards will be reluctant to get their misbehaving computer seen to by a repair person.

    2. Re:Viruses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hordes, not hoards. Saw this yesterday as well. Please lern 2 spell in futcher. It's annoying.

    3. Re:Viruses by imroy · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, sorry. It's not a word I commonly use and I picked the wrong homophone. I usually do better than most, if that's of any value.

  19. Great idea despite the naysayers by fahlenkp · · Score: 1

    While I wouldn't say it isn't possible for someone to break in and kill your machine, it isn't likely. We have been using Absolute software's offering and have been able to do remote wipes on laptops for a long time now. Nobody has broken in and wiped out all the computers with this technology. That being said, do you really think IT who implements this doesn't have a backup? And that our legal departments wouldn't get fair compensation if said "gotcha" really occurs? I would rather have the ability to disable a phone or pc in any way possible when I need it to happen. For the comment above about just moving the hard drive to another machine.. Really? Who goes through the trouble of enabling this, and paying monthly for the service and just skips the whole drive encryption bit? My vote is go Intel.

    1. Re:Great idea despite the naysayers by Aryden · · Score: 1

      And my vote is: This is stupid. Hypothetically, If I want your data, HDD goes into an external case and read with one or another flavor of linux. If I want to sell it, I'll pull the battery out of the laptop immediately, no power = no 3g. On a PC, do I even have to say it? not plugged in, getting no power. However, if they require some form of external supply, i.e. adding a battery to the mobo, well then i'll just know to pull that fucker out asap then won't I.

    2. Re:Great idea despite the naysayers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think a difference would be.. the Intel solution will be much more widespread than Absolute (never heard of it btw), therefore more of a target. There are lots of negative comments so far, but I'm wondering if you can't just turn it off in the BIOS. Pretty much a no-brainer IMO.

    3. Re:Great idea despite the naysayers by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I would rather have the ability to disable a phone or pc in any way possible when I need it to happen.

      So would I. But I don't want somebody else necessarily to have that same bit of control. There's the rub, the devil in the details. How configurable will it be and who gets to configure it. Since everyone here at least has their tinfoil hat close by (perhaps covered by seasonally appropriate decorations) I don't think it's too far fetched to think that we're mostly worried about them.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Great idea despite the naysayers by King_TJ · · Score: 2

      I'm afraid I just don't agree.

      The way I see it, ANY piece of hardware that has a built-in ability to receive some command that renders it completely non-functional is hardware with a DESIGN FLAW.

      If it's in there someplace, you can be sure that eventually, the malware/spyware writers will devise some way to trigger it. (I can see the plan forming already. Software pops up and demands a random fee be paid online, or else it will kill your CPU.)

      Most of us find the ability to remote kill a cellphone more acceptable, because those devices are relatively disposable. People often receive them at heavily discounted rates as part of a service contract for a year or two, and it's rare the user actually keeps the same unit after that contract is up for a renewal. Besides, if you quit paying for a monthly contract for a phone, you've got a barely useful device in your hands at that point, anyway. (The way contract phones are handled in the USA right now, they really could do just as well to lease the things to people.)

    5. Re:Great idea despite the naysayers by fahlenkp · · Score: 1

      Absolute=lojack the parent company. These guys are late to the big brother party. Lenovo, Dell, HP all come with the SMS activation with no power and gps tracking support in the BIOS. The icing on this cake is that when I report a machine stolen now, sms message goes out, activates gps, cops go after it, and the processor is disabled so if the battery does run out, the machine is useless. The comment 2 up-- You didn't read my comment. We encrypt our drives. While once in a while a crack comes out for this, it gets patched pretty quick. I'm not concerned. I just read a little more, you have to enable it in the BIOS, doesn't come by default. You can also have the full functionality restored.

    6. Re:Great idea despite the naysayers by fahlenkp · · Score: 1

      So you don't have a machine with a built in SSH port? (or remote desktop?) What is really harder? Building a virus to modify a modern BIOS or execute RM -rf? The point of most malware is not to render the computer useless. It is to use the computer in a botnet or extract valuable information. Now where was that tinfoil hat? Maybe I am missing something obvious.

    7. Re:Great idea despite the naysayers by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      You are going to have a heart attack when you google Lighs Out Management (LOM)

    8. Re:Great idea despite the naysayers by Cwix · · Score: 1

      Give me 100 dollars or I fry your CPU springs to mind. I believe its called ransomware. They didnt used to be able to kill the CPU though.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    9. Re:Great idea despite the naysayers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but why would the virus have to even kill the CPU. If enough consumers think they have this type of CPU, all the virus has to do is threaten to kill the CPU (and just screw-up the boot process otherwise to make it seem like the CPU is "down")
      There are plenty of malware/virus scams not involving the CPU kill that prey on consumer perceived knowledge to manipulate the situation

    10. Re:Great idea despite the naysayers by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Don't bother. He's either a troll or utterly ignorant of the real world.

      Just hope and pray you never wind up with someone so utterly ignorant of the real world as your boss.

    11. Re:Great idea despite the naysayers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would rather have the ability to disable a phone or pc in any way possible when I need it to happen.

      So would I. But I don't want somebody else necessarily to have that same bit of control. There's the rub, the devil in the details. How configurable will it be and who gets to configure it. Since everyone here at least has their tinfoil hat close by (perhaps covered by seasonally appropriate decorations) I don't think it's too far fetched to think that we're mostly worried about them.

      Only the rightful owner of your PC will have the ability to disable it when a theft occurs, namely Microsoft when they detect your unlicensed copy of Word.

    12. Re:Great idea despite the naysayers by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      We encrypt our drives. While once in a while a crack comes out for this, it gets patched pretty quick.

      Encryption does not work that way.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    13. Re:Great idea despite the naysayers by fahlenkp · · Score: 1

      I challenge you to cite some examples of PGP, Credant, Truecrypt, or Checkpoint disk encryption failing to patch their whole disk encryption. I'll come up with a list many times bigger with holes that are patched. I am here because my job depends on it and I need to keep an open mind. Please educate me.

    14. Re:Great idea despite the naysayers by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      What the fuck are you talking about?

      Encryption can no be "patched", it's either based on a sufficiently secure algorithm or not. It's not access restrictions implemented by software that may be bypassed through various flaws and then those flaws are fixed so they can not be exploited anymore. Once encryption algorithm is discovered to be insecure, all data encrypted by it is compromised if anyone ever got a copy.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    15. Re:Great idea despite the naysayers by fahlenkp · · Score: 1

      My first post did not make the assertion that an I enable *any* specific algorithm. My second post did not make an assertion that I was relying on a single algorithm. If you would like to engage an issue I spoke of, please do. I do not understand the tangent you are on.

    16. Re:Great idea despite the naysayers by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      that an I enable *any* specific algorithm

      Parse error.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    17. Re:Great idea despite the naysayers by fahlenkp · · Score: 1

      You have a funny sense of humor. I do like the rotary dial phone on your desk.

  20. 3G connection when it is off? by igreaterthanu · · Score: 1

    So how much of a drain does this put on the battery?

    Battery life is one of the most crucial attributes of a laptop, I know what I wont be buying now.

    --
    I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
  21. Oh, they're not selling enough cpu's... by tp_xyzzy · · Score: 1

    What a convinient way to make people buy new computers. When the previous one dies because of some random timer in intel headquarters, you just need to buy a new one.

    It'll be their way of making us rent the machines, and not actually own them.

  22. Loongson by bleakgadfly · · Score: 1

    Let's hope the chinese gets some more power behind it's Loongson-processor, and we would see some really interesting CISC vs. RISC stuff the next 5-10 years.

    1. Re:Loongson by Anonymous+Cowar · · Score: 1

      and a device that will have 100% access to your data with 100% oversight by the chinese.

    2. Re:Loongson by bornagainpenguin · · Score: 1

      and a device that will have 100% access to your data with 100% oversight by the chinese.

      You know...as a home user I find myself incredibly okay with that possibility. I can at least trust that the Chinese government will be consistent with their ideological goals. Corporations and the US government? Not so much...

      --
      Have a Virgin Mobile USA smartphone? Give VMRoms.com a try!
    3. Re:Loongson by bleakgadfly · · Score: 1

      Because that is more likely with chinese chips than it is with American...

  23. Would you buy a machine with this in ? by RichMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This to me says it will push foreign governments to non-intel machines. Can't risk the US government getting control of something like this.
    Or any other power for that matter. No government or military would really want this on their systems. They might think they want it to "stop theft" but the consequences of someone else getting control are way to much.

  24. Leased computers by 0WaitState · · Score: 1

    This seems likely to support leased computers--miss a payment, your processor gets switched off.

    Just like buy-here/pay-here car "dealers", with a remote vehicle disabler. ...and as others have said, DO NOT WANT.

    --

    Remain calm! All is well!
    1. Re:Leased computers by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      Interesting point. But having lived in the US for a while, there be lawyer-like questions at hand:
      1) Is the CPU the only thing disabled?
                a) can it be reenabled, and by whom? how? will that tool be leaked as well an render everything moot?
                b) can thieves buy a new CPU w/ different serial#, and steal my investment on the *whole PC* despite my mandated kill?
                c) will a gray market develop around selling CPU's that ignore the kill instructions, thereby helping thieves abusing step b?
      2) If the whole board itself is disabled by mistake, who pays my company for the error and hardware loss? can that be reversed? can that reversal be abused by fakers?

  25. It's working. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's working, it's killed my interest already!

  26. HD != CPU by Twinbee · · Score: 3, Informative

    What a pity all the important information is stored on the HD, not the CPU.

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    1. Re:HD != CPU by LuxMaker · · Score: 1

      Yes but through the CPU given the proper commands it may be theoretically possible to access the HD over a 3G connection.

      --
      I regret that I only have one mod point to give per post.
    2. Re:HD != CPU by Oriumpor · · Score: 1

      Yeah, not like you can read the information off the registers or anything.... or snoop L1/L2 cache if it's that tightly integrated....

    3. Re:HD != CPU by lobiusmoop · · Score: 1

      I guess the HD could be bound to the CPU however, via hardware encryption and an embedded private key in the CPU firmware. That way, dead CPU = lost data, even if the HD is removed.

      --
      "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    4. Re:HD != CPU by anonymous+til+caught · · Score: 1

      my thoughts exactly. why would anyone CARE about this? This is OLD technology, the govt has been using it for years to access your computers while you're asleep in bed, and now the secret is out, so they MUST tell everyone about it. So, let's call it... "SECURITY," and pretend we never had the ability to access your computer until now. really? If someone stupid stole my computer, this is great. But anyone that wanted my computer, would KNOW that you can just rip out the HD and put it on a jumper cable to another computer... and hey, they have all your precious information. This is a bad joke, end of story

    5. Re:HD != CPU by smash · · Score: 1

      This is why you wipe the machine via remote management before triggering the kill switch.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    6. Re:HD != CPU by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Intel has an interest in combining as much as possible onto the CPU die, as this is vital for low-power and embedded applications. If the HD encryption uses a TPM, which is on the CPU die, then disabling the CPU renders the data on the hard drive useless. The downside is that should your CPU just fail for some unrelated reason, you lose all your data.

  27. What? No conspiracy theories? by reemul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow. More than 30 comments already and no-one has brought up Microsoft killing the cpu if it thinks your copy of the OS is pirated. Must be a slow day. ;)

    --
    You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*
    1. Re:What? No conspiracy theories? by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, because only MS is evil enough to consider such a thing. Actually, it sounds like something more up Apple's alley. Regardless, that idea is absurd - any established company would be a stationary target for class action suites over something like this. They certainly aren't that stupid.

      No, people should be far, far more concerned about viruses and malware. Especially considering how Anonymous and their ilk now think they have some sort of political agenda. The US government has done something Anonymous doesn't like? Let's brick every machine with a US IP address. Now that is something to be afraid of. Or those Chinese "patriotic hackers" that hacked their way into Google. Yeah, I'd be a bit concerned about that sort of thing.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    2. Re:What? No conspiracy theories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unique 25 character key per CPU, only ever reviewed printed on the original packaging. Even if an attacker could gain root access to your own system, bruteforcing the key is very impractical.

    3. Re:What? No conspiracy theories? by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      And you're certain there are no implemention flaws with this chip that could allow the feature to be exploited in an informal way?

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    4. Re:What? No conspiracy theories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Destruction of a third party device isn't (yet) something MS could get away with legally. And oh my, the litigation over false positives isn't worth thinking about. MS can be stupidly evil, but they're not syphilitic insane. They won't do that.

      But they will sell a software package for _others_ to crap the device. It'll get sold as anti-theft and communications-control. Their "discretion assured" sale department to governments will love this.

    5. Re:What? No conspiracy theories? by vakuona · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When has Apple _ever_ disabled hardware that it sold to customers. Ever. The Apple that won't even ask for a registration code when installing software on its machines. Apple might do many things, but one of them isn't putting or using hardware kill switches on its machines. Apple wants you to buy their hardware. They don't really care if you don't use their software once you have done that, but you will have made them their money.

    6. Re:What? No conspiracy theories? by davecb · · Score: 1

      Just iterate through all values once, while broadcasting on the appropriate 3G channel, and DDOS every product with the feature (;-))

      --dave

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    7. Re:What? No conspiracy theories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't kill your CPU. They stop windows from running. That's a huge difference.

    8. Re:What? No conspiracy theories? by smash · · Score: 1

      Microsoft wouldn't do that. An no, not because they're nice guys.

      If your machine dies, you aren't a potential software customer. You aren't learning their software. More useful to them is to spam you with nagware to get you to buy, but even if you don't, you're helping the monopoly by simply being an end user, legal or not.

      If microsoft were to actually KILL all machines out there running pirate windows, their market share would disappear overnight.

      Not to mention the legal ramifications of getting it wrong and killing a legit machine.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    9. Re:What? No conspiracy theories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Microsoft already does this if your copy of one of the more recent version of Windows isn't registered.
      Download one of the trial versions of Windows Server 2008 and don't get it registered and see if they don't shutdown power on you.

    10. Re:What? No conspiracy theories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Probably because most of us have evolved past any MIcrosoft OS ;)

    11. Re:What? No conspiracy theories? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall Apple killing jailbroken iPhones with their firmware updates.

    12. Re:What? No conspiracy theories? by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      The jailbroken iPhones weren't using pirated iOs... Learn to read/remember.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    13. Re:What? No conspiracy theories? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Apple doesn't care about people pirating their OS - it only runs on macs anyway, so they already made their money.

    14. Re:What? No conspiracy theories? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Yes, because only MS is evil enough to consider such a thing. Actually, it sounds like something more up Apple's alley.

      Except Microsoft already has tried things like this. Do people forget these things so easily? Try changing the hardware in your computer, and you may need to call Microsoft to get your OS re-enabled.

      As far as I can tell this is just a GPIO line that tells the processor to become disabled. Its existence doesn't matter at all; what matters is how the OEMs wire it.

      --
      Qxe4
    15. Re:What? No conspiracy theories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so, with everyone scared about cyberwar and cyberterrorism and hackers and all that stuff, did anyone ever bother to ask what the actual danger was? Oh and dont give me that old crap about nuclear powerplants, you dont have that. hell the media try to make us think cyberwar is just as bad as real war. C'mon its just data, i know there is missioncritical data around (what. about 0.00000001%, rest beeing torrents and cats?). Just like the anonymous guys, thery make an impact because the media lets them , when they really are just scriptkiddies who think they are trying to be cool.

      oh and i do support wikileaks

    16. Re:What? No conspiracy theories? by unkiereamus · · Score: 2

      Yes, because only MS is evil enough to consider such a thing. Actually, it sounds like something more up Apple's alley.

      So, I'm not really a fanboy either way, but just to point out a fact:

      Windows 7 requires that you enter a 20 digit alphanumeric key, then runs you through the whole WGA thing, which has in the past had false positives which (to give them credit) don't actually make your computer unusable, but do reduce the functionality.

      To contrast, do you know what you have to do to validate an install of OS X (or before that, Finder)? Not a damn thing. Install it and go.

      --
      I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
    17. Re:What? No conspiracy theories? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I may be an AC, but you are so wrong!

  28. What could possibly go wrong... by FunPika · · Score: 2

    ...Until some hacker finds a security flaw in the system used to send the kill signals, and goes on a rampage disabling as many computers as they can (which fate will ensure will be the vast majority that have been sold with these processors at the least, and after thousands/millions of them have been sold and are in average users' desktops/laptops). Que a shitload of inconvenienced customers and tech support guys wanting to blow their brains out from all the calls they will be getting.

    --
    After years of not using a signature, I am going to make one to say the following: Fuck Beta
    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong... by xnpu · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly why there will be an undocumented liveswitch as well.

    2. Re:What could possibly go wrong... by eriqk · · Score: 1

      ...Until some hacker finds a security flaw in the system used to send the kill signals,[...]

      s/hacker/"disgruntled employee"/

  29. So what? by cephus440 · · Score: 1

    They can stop the processor. It's the data that's in the HD that's important. It's kind of like saying that I'm going to make a vehicle anti-theft device. When you steal the car, the radio won't work.

    1. Re:So what? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      They can stop the processor. It's the data that's in the HD that's important. It's kind of like saying that I'm going to make a vehicle anti-theft device. When you steal the car, the radio won't work.

      That might work remarkably well in some modern vehicles. It's becoming more and more common to find all sorts of odd integration of the electronics - I wouldn't be at all surprised if some car manufacturer somewhere has hooked the radio up to the engine immobiliser.

  30. So just buy one that can't be shut down. by silvein · · Score: 2

    I don't work for Intel, so I don't know exactly how they do this. But I don't think this is all the processor (it won't work without a 3G radio for one, so at least some of this capability rests in the mainboard), and how much is the firmware.

    My guess is when you boot the machine, the processor runs the BIOS/EFI, and when initializing the 3G radio it sees if there is a flag. If so, the system shuts down. If it does this before even looking for an OS or starting up the display, you'd never know it even tried to boot. Otherwise, it goes on its way.

    Also I only see this being used on laptop systems (as they are the only systems likely to have a 3G radio). Adding a 3G radio to a desktop mainboard seems like a waste of money (but if you are the CIA, maybe it's worth it).

    --
    - silvein
    1. Re:So just buy one that can't be shut down. by Microlith · · Score: 1

      I'm sure this would work over far more than just 3G. Any network connection would suffice, especially if running UEFI.

    2. Re:So just buy one that can't be shut down. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      What you describe doesn't really sound like a processor kill switch, since it would be up to the BIOS/EFI and the 3G radio and once you have that you could use any CPU. I kind of figure they must put an eFuse on the processor, and the 3G radio can set up some kind of sequence to blow it, pretty much turning the processor into a (small) brick.

  31. similar thing exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's similar to the computrace stuff which also provides remote control capabilities in the bios,
    the part with the 'kill switch' is probably only the tip of the eisberg - it would also be possible to modify/flash firmware, bios, etc so they then can modify the filesystem (each step can do a little bit more) -
    the nice thing when you read patents is that you can get a lot of information: e.g. do the computrace patents mentioned remotely triggered modification to the microcode of the processor.
    so, now we know were we are heading.

  32. We're missing the real danger here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If Intel can include a remote-activated kill-switch, what's to prevent them from installing a remote-activated vulnerability switch? If your hardware can be compromised remotely it's the end of all security on that computer. You have no guarantee that your cryptographic keys are safe or that your every keystroke isn't being logged. Once they have your hardware under their control, you're doomed.

  33. So at the very best.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The thief gets away with a server and only has to replace the processor.. that's like giving them a car and having them replace the window they smashed to get into it.

    The very worst has been posted a few times already.

  34. Anti-theft... or anti-dissent? by macraig · · Score: 1

    Next up: anyone, inside of government or not, who accesses or downloads anything from WikiLeaks will have their computer remotely fried. Who needs a warrant to search and seize when ya got 3G?

    1. Re:Anti-theft... or anti-dissent? by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

      Briliantly evil.

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  35. Won't keep your data out of 'enemy' hands by pentalive · · Score: 1

    So you can brick the processor? So I can replace the processor.

    1. Re:Won't keep your data out of 'enemy' hands by smash · · Score: 1

      You can already remotely wipe/disable. You can already use encryption on the disk to prevent unauthorised access if you desire. The kill switch is just the last component required to make a stolen machine totally worthless.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    2. Re:Won't keep your data out of 'enemy' hands by toddestan · · Score: 1

      If they're particularly evil, they'll set some kill flag in the BIOS before blowing the CPU. Put in a new CPU and try and boot it up, the BIOS sees that the kill flag is set and blows that CPU too.

      Could make troubleshooting a dead Intel system somewhat interesting.

  36. Err, how about... by cptnapalm · · Score: 1

    How about GPS so we could, y'know, get the computer back?

    1. Re:Err, how about... by udippel · · Score: 1

      How about GPS so we could, y'know, get the computer back?

      I don't know about the States, but where we live, we had people contacting the police about stolen cars, and the answer was along the lines of "So, if you know where your car is, then why not go and just repossess it!?"
      Though I do vaguely remember a Slashot story about some stolen laptop, and zero enforcement due to the laptop being used in some other of the 50 states.

  37. Intel new 3 step buisness plan by bug1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1. Sell CPU.
    2. Break it remotely.
    3. Goto step 1.

    1. Re:Intel new 3 step buisness plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've forgotten a few extra steps for the management,

      Step 4 - get a class action on your ass
      Step 5 - grant yourself tons of options are stock plummets
      Step 6 - announce new revision of the processor where the "feature" is no longer there
      Step 7 - pocket the free money from Step 5

    2. Re:Intel new 3 step buisness plan by bsquizzato · · Score: 1

      The solution:

      1. Buy CPU
      2. Wrap computer case in aluminum foil to block ze 3G's.
      3. Victory

    3. Re:Intel new 3 step buisness plan by BartholomewBernsteyn · · Score: 1

      Next turn...

      1. Sell CPU
      2.
              a. Break it remotely.
              b. Require periodical access to heartbeat signal via 3G, or else break CPU.
      3. Goto 1.

    4. Re:Intel new 3 step buisness plan by Reality+Master+301 · · Score: 1

      Aren't you forgetting something?

    5. Re:Intel new 3 step buisness plan by bsquizzato · · Score: 1

      Damn, you got me!

  38. Stock Market by Donniedarkness · · Score: 1
    Looks like it's time to buy stock in AMD (actually, that time was May of 2008....)

    I don't want to pay for "features" like this.

    --
    Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
  39. Who else can disable it? by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

    Serious question, who else will have access to the datacenter that issues these kill commands?

    I think we all know, everything else aside, some hacker out there would LOVE to claim credit for disabling thousands of computers, costing intel a fortune in replacement fees.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:Who else can disable it? by Mysteray · · Score: 1

      Right. So is Intel now in the business of deciding who gets shut off, like Amazon and DynDns? Or will they hand out kill switch codes to the top 250 computer manufacturers? Will they have a legal team on call 24/7 to ensure that kill switch requests meet even the minimum legal criteria? Will they argue on your behalf, or will they just go with whoever pays the most money? Will there be any prior notice and will you be able to appeal a kill switch order on your CPU? Will Intel do any better than YouTube at rejecting illegitimate requests submitted by parties that just want to screw with you?

      Now that the US DHS has found out how much fun it is to play with the kill switch VeriSign gave them on .com websites, is there any reason to think that they won't order CPU shutdowns as well? Would they not have jumped at the chance to have killed Wikileaks' overseas PCs?

      Why would any foreign government, non-US user, or multi-national corporation buy a system with Intel CPUs now?

      How dumb can this company be?

      Note to Intel: Ways to kill your product or reduce its performance are failings, not features.

    2. Re:Who else can disable it? by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      See my other comment
      Disabling is meant to prevent theft, and not to compensate possible fakers for a feature that clearly worked as designed.
      Companies will have no trouble lawyering up and demanding compensation when errors occur, but the average joe will probably not even be given a kill switch. At least for free. And if some anonymous kiddie orders my kill, all they can say is "oops, we ain't giving up a brand new CPU unless you're corporate --go out and buy a different model"

  40. It's just revenge! by zanian · · Score: 1

    There is absolutely no use for this beyond revenge. It is not "anti-theft" as they call it. Your computer is still going to get stolen the only difference is that the thief doesn't get to use it after you disable the processor. Of course revenge is sweet, but this does not protect you from theft. Also, any files on the hard drive can still be pulled out. As we all suspect, a remote kill switch is a bad idea all around, but it would seem that even the intended use of this fails.

    1. Re:It's just revenge! by smash · · Score: 1

      Its a deterrent. If the machine is not going to work or be worth anything shortly after theft, then why would you risk stealing it in the first place (other than for data, which can already be remotely wiped or have the disk encrypted on OS install)

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    2. Re:It's just revenge! by mlts · · Score: 1

      For people like us, its a deterrent. It also is useful for laptops with TPM chips and soldered on CPUs, where blowing out the CPU means that the data can't be moved to a new machine and accessed.

      However for the crackhead on the street, if he sees a laptop, even if he knows it may be DOA when he hands it to the fence, he will be going to grab it.

      This kill switch is really less of deterring theft than making sure that enterprise assets are secure.

    3. Re:It's just revenge! by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Erm... no.

      The use is so that if your company happens to be in a country where you actually have to look after customer data and a laptop gets stolen, you can now stand up in court and say "When we discovered it was stolen, we activated our remote disabling application. This would have destroyed the CPU and the keys for the encrypted hard disk, turning the laptop into a rather expensive doorstop."

      Once you can say this, the fine your company is facing rapidly loses zeroes from the end.

  41. Misplaced technology by erroneus · · Score: 1

    What is needed is a remote means of wiping or at least making unusable data stored on hard drive or mass storage media. In the case of SDD, the technology should be obviously transferable. In the case of hard drives, perhaps an encryption key can be stored in a non-volatile RAM area and then erased on remote command to disable the data on the drive.

    Disabling the processor will only hurt crack-heads. On the other hand, disabling or erasing data remotely will give businesses and government a chance to prevent data from getting into the wrong hands.

  42. planned obsolescence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now we'll know when it's time to upgrade.

  43. How can they even pretend this is a positive? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    There's no security benefit to the consumer, and the types of customers who'd really be interested in security features are business buyers - meaning the purchaser is going to be at least a marginally-IT-aware person who'll grok this (since business purchases aren't generally handled by the end user).

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:How can they even pretend this is a positive? by turtleshadow · · Score: 1

      I'd hope that this was a spring board to more positive benefits for consumers of Intel products, especially businesses with big data centers.

      It would be a good way to get past the financial crunch times, a derivative of the kill switch is a license switch. IE phoning to power up a few more processors in my grid, then phoning again power them down them in a few weeks.
      Would really be easier to do the licensing than now. I'd have a bill for it and could make cases justify the IT costs.

      A second case that is beneficial is remotely deactivating a branch office in the face of a natural disaster would also be a positive. Im thinking katrina or other kind of wide spread civil disaster.
      Certainly a peace of mind for data loss prevention over physical assets lost to looting or just plain MIA PCs and laptops. Of course would be useful when an embassy is overtaken or deserted without the thermite being set off.

      If the kill switch would be audit-able it would be beneficial to Congress, OMB, local gov and business auditors who could get documentation how many times kill switches were used for employee lost equipment, etc... Its a metric unable to be figured out today.

      It used to be real news when a Gov PC or laptop went missing. Now a days it how many dozens per month that had to accounted as de-rezed.

      If it lowered a consumers deductibles and insurance to have this feature I think they wouldn't mind. But insurance as a system isn't working anyhow.

      Lastly we may get some trade wars going on. Im sure no other government would want american origin CPUs at this point. They may just turn to China's copy of what we did 2 years ago. I guess that makes it a positive for China's economy.

  44. Faraday Cages, anyone? by Shadyman · · Score: 1

    Tin-Foil Laptop Sleeves are down Aisle 7.

  45. Well, the article sucks... by msauve · · Score: 5, Informative

    since it doesn't explain how this works, or what's it's really all about.

    It doesn't permanently disable the processor, you can revive it if you know the password. To do a kill over 3G, you send an encrypted SMS, and the laptop obviously needs 3G capability and the OS needs to be running.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Well, the article sucks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "you can revive it if you know the password" Unless the shutdown message changes the password first.

    2. Re:Well, the article sucks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An encrypted SMS? If it's one private key per device you have this massive database of "what is the chip ID, and what is the corresponding PK" which must be kept secure, and will probably end up on wikileaks.

      If you have one private key per chip line, then as soon as that's cracked it's all your base.

  46. Catering to security Consultants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because if your $1k computer is stolen, then it would be useful to wait a year for a Security officer to find it on his "beat list" as stolen property that is worth less to maintane, so he remotely disables the CPU so it isn't used by terrorists/tourists.

    Because vwe know it's assuring the value of property, not guarunteeing some 'tard with Hollywood widgets a $250/hr job payed through the reasonable Billing departmeent of Legislated courts of limited liability that handle your payments vfor child support and taxes.

  47. Circumvention procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Place stolen laptops in lead foil lined bag. Abscond with bag to faraday cage. Disable in an as yet unknown way.

  48. Tracking shutting down by pfraser · · Score: 1

    So, you can remotely disable a system that has been stolen. This will mean criminals of opportunity will just throw the device away (and you'll never get it back) or criminals with intent to steal your data will just yank the drive.

    Better solution? Discreet tracking. Keep an eye on the system and track where it goes so you can recover it when you're ready.

    As for all the controversy around this, how is it any different to what Apple do with its beloved iPhone?

  49. Primer on how this works because you guys=confused by fahlenkp · · Score: 1

    1. purchase license for remote recovery service. 2. enable service on laptop bios, encrypt drive, enable intel kill switch. 3. now I can see all computer's GPS history in a nifty web portal. It has pretty maps and charts, good manager bait. Now I can set fences based on country, state etc to start a wipe and shut down if it leaves that fenced area. 4. User reports stolen laptop, we report to security service. 5. Remote wipe sensitive directories, execute any custom commands. 6. Alert cops to pick it up, start a timer for kill switch based on battery life. 7. Cops don't pick it up, battery is low, disable machine completely with intel switch (only new part here). If you own a laptop, get in the bios right now and look for computrace activation. If it is a business class machine, it is already there and has been for years. If you don't like it, don't get an aircard. All of this technology is up and running for me and a lot of other corporations. If you don't like it, and you work for me, fine. Quit. If you are a home consumer, disable it. Every other service on your computer is equally vulnerable to unknown unwritten malware.

  50. no thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I'll pass on that one intel.

  51. Why are people believing this? by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    There was another article today about a "honeypot new release" too see how foolishly the news media would react to a story linking cell towers to fertility. Now there is a idiotic story about CPU that can be shut down by a G3 cell network even though it isn't connected to the Internet. Why would supposedly technical people believe that a CPU could be made to self destruct even though it has no cell phone, let alone believe that Intel would do it. How do you think that magic signal is going to get inside a cpu? Grow up kids, it's a bogus story.

    And I shouldn't even have to mention that Intel has shown no inclination to do this. They could indeed work with a few major players to disable stolen computers when they are connected to the Internet. But they don't. They could very easily maintain a list of stolen CPU serial numbers, both individual's stolen machines as well as bulk batches of processor chips stolen before manufacturer, but they don't. They could maintain a list that indicated the intended marked speed of chips by serial number to prevent remarking fraud, but they don't. Yet you are ready to believe that they can somehow receive a G3 cellular signal inside a cpu without a phone attached, and that they would do this? Not only can't they do this, they wouldn't do it if they could. They have no intention to hand over all of their business to AMD the day a hacker figures out how to kill all, which is certainly what would happen.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:Why are people believing this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been reading about this for over a month. It's no honeypot.

    2. Re:Why are people believing this? by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      Oh the kill switch is true, it's been spoken of a few times already. However, it isn't part of the CPU but of the overall architecture and I believe a 3G modem has to be present already.

  52. AMD now hiring 3G cellular hackers by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

    In other news, AMD is now hiring thousands of hackers with 3G cellular experience. For what purpose, nobody knows.

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  53. The real intended use case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We like to think that it's designed for this scenario:

    1. You have a laptop with important and valuable secrets
    2. It's stolen by corporate or government agents
    3. They extract your hard drive and take your important and valuable secrets
    4. ??? and profit, I suppose

    In fact, here's what is more likely to happen.

    1. You have a laptop with unimportant and banal secrets
    2. It's stolen by a drug addict, who doesn't even power it on
    3. It's pawned off to the guy on the street corner, who may check if it boots
    4. It's on-sold to a "professional" fence, at a markup
    5. It ends up on eBay, at a markup

    This anti-theft technology is meant to address steps 4 and 5 of the above. (Whether it will be effective is another thing.)

  54. Tin Foil Hat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now my computer has to wear a tin foil hat to remain safe from evildoers?

  55. How? by IchBinEinPenguin · · Score: 1

    Works without an internet connection, even while the device is turned off.

    Spooky action at a distance?

  56. Well... by AlfaMike · · Score: 1

    Computers could be considered as "means to access illegal content" as much as Thepiratebay gets to be guilty of "providing means to get illegal content". One lawsuit and kiss your processor goodbye. Awesome news for AMD fanboys though. This could mean several new clients for AMD.

    1. Re:Well... by udippel · · Score: 1

      This could mean several new clients for AMD

      ... until Intel uses its lobbyists to bribe - sorry, 'lobby' - the US government into making this kill-switch compulsory for all processors.

  57. Second Hand Market. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like this is the end of the second hand market.

    Once a phone/computer is deactivated, I'll wager that there is only one way to get it back on.

    Calling Intel, paying the fees (repurchasining) and hoping it works.

  58. The real questions by airfoobar · · Score: 1

    TFA sort of implies this "feature" will be optional and users will be able to "set it up" if they want to. I surely hope so, because otherwise this could be a huge deal-breaker for me.

  59. How does this help? by BLToday · · Score: 1

    I'm more concern about the data on the computer than preventing a thief from using it. Unless it can remote wipe the hard drive, I'm not interested.

  60. Or by Nihn · · Score: 1

    If you are suspected of...anything, they can kill off your computer....or if anyone figures the 3g coding used they can maliciously kill peoples computer causing all kinds of damage...it's not intended for "theft" it's intended to take away toys from people who disobey big brother. With wireless access to your processor they can literally see everything you have done on that computer, fuck that.

  61. Safen up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First an internet kill switch, now CPU kill switches? I'm feeling safer all the time!

  62. virus that tigger this sounds like a big DoS attac by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    virus that trigger this sounds like a big DoS attack just waiting to happen but who will want this when AMD will have a cheap cpu with better built in video.

  63. MOD PARENT UP by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

    So what you're saying is that there's not actually a remote kill switch that disables the processor, that it's a business feature that helps companies lock down stolen hardware, and that TFA and TFS got it completely and utterly wrong?

    Yep. It's a normal day at Slashdot.

  64. new intel assembly op-code by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

    MCF

    or, Mail and Catch Fire. on smtp magic matches, the cpu will execute the HCF instruction at elevated priority.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  65. I think airplane autopilots are still on 386 2005 by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think airplane autopilots are still on 386 or at least they where in 2005.

  66. amd will have one with decent integrated gpu that by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    amd will have one with decent integrated gpu that does not lock out 3rd party chipsets like intel does.

  67. Re:Tracking shutting down by jepaton · · Score: 1

    The "kill-switch" is intended for businesses and governments - the cost of a computer is negligible compared to the potential cost of a data breach. Encryption should be standard for these organisations. If the encryption is done properly then it should be tied to both the hardware and the user, so that data can only be accessed on authorised computer systems. Hence the "kill-switch" which will prevent data from being decrypted (by denying access to the hardware) even if the user's passwords are known. This is far more security than the average person wants or needs.

    Discrete tracking may allow equipment to be recovered. But just like anti-theft ID chips in Caravans etc. it isn't necessarily the thief that is out of pocket when the equipment is recovered.

  68. Corporate Laptops! by nanospook · · Score: 1

    I would think corporations would be a big user of this feature. They go insane trying to prevent any info from being leaked through a stolen laptop. With encryption in place, if they could just kill the laptop anytime it would add to the security.. However, what would really add to the security would be a kill switch connected to a dormant magnet. If the kill switch gets turned on the magnet gets turned on wiping the hard drive..

    --
    Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
    1. Re:Corporate Laptops! by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Already is a very strong magnet in a hard drive, so that's out. Nah, easy solution is to encrypt the hard drive and just wipe the keys.

  69. Who needs an "internet kill-switch"? by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 1

    When you've got one of these?

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
    1. Re:Who needs an "internet kill-switch"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got a shotgun, I can remotely shut down your computer from the other side of the room!

  70. Skynet by jeremiahstanley · · Score: 1

    I guess this is how Skynet won... time travel is a bitch.

  71. Obligatory: The Car Analogy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Q1. How often have you misplaced your car key? (Be honest now..)

    Q2. How often have you accidently locked a car, whle the keys were in it? (Remember - honest answers, now..)

    ***

    QA. How often have you ever forgoten a pasword?

    QB. How often (exactly) have you personally lost/had a computer stolen, and still cared more about whether or not the processor sill worked than your data?

    ***

    Add up sum from answers Q1 & Q2, subtract number of times QB is applicable, multiply resulting number by QA & the number of days to Christmas (In the Year 2525), then.. ..boycott this (and every other) backdoor BS, seriously.

    1. Re:Obligatory: The Car Analogy. by lenski · · Score: 1

      Q1. How often have you misplaced your car key? (Be honest now..)

      Never.

      Q2. How often have you accidently locked a car, whle the keys were in it? (Remember - honest answers, now..)

      Never.

      QA. How often have you ever forgoten a pasword?

      QB. How often (exactly) have you personally lost/had a computer stolen, and still cared more about whether or not the processor sill worked than your data?

      Gratefully, I've never had such a thing happen, but the data has always been worth waaay more than the computer.

      Add up sum from answers Q1 & Q2, subtract number of times QB is applicable, multiply resulting number by QA & the number of days to Christmas (In the Year 2525), then.. ..boycott this (and every other) backdoor BS, seriously.

      I have always locked doors with the key. ("always" == every single time I've locked a door, it was done with the key. I often don't bother to lock my friendly old car.)

      I have an IronKey® and did in fact forget the password to it, for the first 7 of 10 tries. Fortunately I finally remembered it and still have use of it.

      My wife's psychology business requires us to keep our equipment under lock and key, so we do. I am adding additional crypto layers as we speak, just to make sure. I don't think it's worth trying to prevent NSA-quality spying on my wife's patient appointment records, but your average cracker should have a pretty difficult time with it. Remote disable is far less interesting to me than good security policy.

      Joking aside, I will not voluntarily depend on a device that can be easily disabled remotely. Yes, I have an Android® phone, and no I don't depend on it.

    2. Re:Obligatory: The Car Analogy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sir, Thank you for your participation ;-)

      - lets see.. despite being perhaps within the uppermost 3% of security-conscious people upon this planet, judging by your answers (one whose significant other has never slammed the boot by unloading while the door remote key was also carefully placed in the boot - shoot!) - let us evaluate your answers:

      You said:

      - I dont often bother locking my car.
      - I have forgotten a password on at least 7 seperate, consecutive ocassions.
      - I CNGAF if my processor is locked, I only care about my data.
      - I do not want a remote-enabled processor lock-down system.

      Here at Intel Market Research, we say:

      Congratulations! - We CNGAF what you want either, youv'e won our Brand Noo, NSA, CIA and every passing War-Driving Script-Kiddie enabled, PC Kill Switch!

      Thanks for playing, please, buy again - see you again sometime soon - maybe, sooner than you think!

    3. Re:Obligatory: The Car Analogy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Q1. How often have you misplaced your car key? (Be honest now..)"
      Outside my house, where this matters? Never, that I can recall...

      "Q2. How often have you accidently locked a car, whle the keys were in it? (Remember - honest answers, now..)"
      Never, ever, ever. I don't lock my car with the doorlock switches on the door; I take my key out the ignition, get out of the car, close the door and press the "lock/alarm set" button on the remote for my alarm system. How many times have I forgot to lock the car? That too is rare, I recall maybe 3, 4 times max (only to be discovered the next day). But I've never locked the keys in the car.

      "QA. How often have you ever forgoten a pasword?"

      Admittedly... a shitload of times. I always keep my passwords in a file which is only accessible by me (as in my user) or root. I think some day, I will think of a better way to store my passwords, but it's not of major importance because it's a desktop machine--it never leaves the house, so a burglery would have to occur for the data to be stolen. And even then, the whole "take the drive and connect it to another machine" wouldn't work for most people, since Windows won't be able to read anything on the drives. A thief would likely format it and be presented with an empty drive before they knew what the problem was.

      But still, if I had a laptop, I would probably use full-drive encryption (TrueCrypt sounds nice for Windows, but it seems many Debian-based Linux distributions including Ubuntu support at least some kind of encryption). And although I don't use encryption on my desktops (I rely on Windows' inability to do anything meaningful with foreign filesystems as well as the general stupidity of most people when it comes to computers to generically "protect" my data), I've thought about at least encrypting certain files (like my password reference file) or hiding a main "server" machine in a closet (maybe with a locked door) with all the files I might use, shared over an encrypted WiFi connection.

      "QB. How often (exactly) have you personally lost/had a computer stolen, and still cared more about whether or not the processor sill worked than your data?"

      Never had a computer (aside from video game systems) stolen, actually... so not very often.

    4. Re:Obligatory: The Car Analogy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sir,

      Intel Market Research commends you upon your Honesty! - Please, see also our previous reply above.

      You Said:

      - I have *never* had a Computer Stolen!
      - I always keep my passwords in a file that would be unreadable in Another Machine..

      JUST - PERFECT! - CONSIDER! - how many times you *might* have had desktop stolen?! Then, the thief *HAD ALL YOUR PASSWORDS!!!*

      Our Intel KillYourPCStoneFuckingDeadAtFuckingRandom option is the obvious solution to all your security needs! Why worry - if your processor can die at any moment, without fucking warning, what chance has then thief? eh? eh? Remember - 4 Trust in A Secure Future - Trust in Intel!

      (Altho, I do regret mentioning the car keys now.. :-/ its obviously just me.. ;-)

    5. Re:Obligatory: The Car Analogy. by lenski · · Score: 1

      Hi anonymous(e):

      1) The ironkey password is one. In 35 years of computing Followed by correct recollection in about a half hour of thinking about it. (7? interesting counting technique there. I assume you are not a technical worker.)

      2) I said "I choose not to depend on equipment that is remotely lockable". Why have you not commented on the GM "Onstar" which has the same feature? It's a car and should fit within your analogy. And there is no way in hell I have such a thing.

      3) I said I often don't lock my OLD car. I have a nice new car that I lock consistently, wtth the key of course.

      4) My wife locked herself out of a car once in 1988.

      5) You don't know about stretching logic way past breaking points do you? I totally GAF about remotely disabled equipment which is why I won't depend on it.

      In general, data security is well known to be far more important than whether a CPU is temporarily disabled. Cost of losing a laptop: $600. Financial responsibility for lost private data: rarely less than $100,000. Perhaps I should apologize to you for not being clear enough for you to understand. I can imagine an organization wanting to prevent big bucks worth of financial responsibility in exchange for occasional hacking inconvenience. That would not be my choice, but I believe it's above my pay grade to prevent others from having that choice.

      I'm also guessing that a solution that is broken by script-kiddies would not get too far into the marketplace, and even if it id, I'm guessing that it would be short-lived, and I don't need to buy that solution.

      In the general area of risk assessment, I am not nearly as concerned about the NSA and CIA as the random anonymous coward on the freeway. I imagine that if either the NSA or CIA wanted information that I have, there are too many much more interesting ways of extracting it from me than hacking a computer.

  72. Joke. How do you contact the NSA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Joke.
    How do you contact the NSA?
    Pick up any phone and ask for them. They are already listening.

  73. I think it fills in the 4-step plan: by YoungHack · · Score: 1

    1. Buy AMD stock.
    2. Short Intel stock.
    3. ??? -- Send the kill signal to thousands of Intel computers
    4. Profit!

  74. wtf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oh no - I have to make a faraday cage out of aluminum foil for all those computers I steal and use constantly.........

  75. Re:Primer on how this works because you guys=confu by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, most of these guys don't have any idea of work that goes on in the real world.

    This is primarily for corporate environments, and they do indeed have uses for it.

  76. Where do you draw the line? Re:Great idea despite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now they have a kill switch function that can be remotely operated.

    What next - packet / password sniffing directly from the processor? The 3G architecture would already be in place. I certainly wouldn't want to do my online shopping / banking with that chip.

  77. Remember CPU Serial Numbers? by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 1

    Another great idea from Intel. What's next, CPUs that self-destruct? Oh, that was the Prescot series!

  78. Export Restrictions, anyone? by udippel · · Score: 0

    It seems nobody has yet posted this, so I think I should:

    Next, might see a return to the old-style cold-war export restrictions. Instead of not exporting, it will be only Intel to be exported legally. Then all those jerks running some nuke factories in Iran or North Korea become much less of a danger, since their facilities can be disabled remotely whenever the State Department feels like.
    Then the Barack Obamas and Sarah Palins will get an additional emergency button added to their repositories: The infamous 'D'-button, enabling the 'D'isablement of all CPUs in the axes of evils.

    1. Re:Export Restrictions, anyone? by YoungHack · · Score: 1

      This idea seems like a non-starter. Motherboards and chips are manufactured outside the country already. They don't have to be exported.

    2. Re:Export Restrictions, anyone? by udippel · · Score: 1

      Okay, okay. I seem to get old.
      I for one was thinking 'whoosh'. But when the 'Flamebait' came around, I started to wonder ... .

      Okay, it was not very funny, but after all, I still consider it as adequate manner to drive the absurdity of the idea into the open.

  79. Re:I think airplane autopilots are still on 386 20 by vlueboy · · Score: 2

    True. Think about how FEW processors are even dual-core outside of home PCs.
    This will be like Vista.

  80. What's the big deal? by dohzer · · Score: 1

    I'm just going to place a 10k pull-down resistor on the "DISABLE_CPU" node.
    Problem solved.

  81. Re:Tracking shutting down by tftp · · Score: 1

    The "kill-switch" is intended for businesses and governments - the cost of a computer is negligible compared to the potential cost of a data breach. Encryption should be standard for these organisations.

    Yes, and companies who care about the data protection already have full disk encryption deployed. I worked for one such company.

    If the encryption is done properly then it should be tied to both the hardware and the user

    It is tied to the HDD itself, as I understand, and maybe to the TPM chip (Windows BitLocker.) I'm unsure that corporations will be happy to tie expensive data to a piece of hardware that can fail on its own (and in businesses with thousands of laptops this happens all the time.)

    so that data can only be accessed on authorised computer systems.

    Technically, "only on computer systems that have the right key." Being authorized is only a preference :-)

    Hence the "kill-switch" which will prevent data from being decrypted (by denying access to the hardware) even if the user's passwords are known.

    It will do no such thing. The thief - who will be briefed on appropriate measures - will pull the battery from the laptop even before he cuts the security cable. Without power the laptop can't do anything. Since you say "the password is known" then it becomes a trivial task of going into a place with no 3G coverage (a basement, a desert, whatever) and powering up the laptop there. Since 3G will be inoperative, the thief will have plenty of time to copy the HDD onto an external drive. Then the laptop is physically destroyed.

    So I don't see how this new kill switch would increase security anywhere.

  82. Intel's own site by bk2204 · · Score: 1

    You can find the information on Intel's own site: http://www.intel.com/technology/anti-theft/ . The 3G kill switch requires the operating system to keep working, but there are other disable mechanisms, such as a watchdog, that don't.

  83. Hard drives are cheap and easy to replace by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    Most people steal because they want your stuff, not your information.

    A dead hard drive doesn't do much to diminish the value of a computer in terms of pawning it or selling it on ebay. A dead CPU, especially in a laptop, makes the computer worthless. Therefore, there's no point stealing it.

    For this to be effective it has to be in wide use. Otherwise the odds of getting a worthless laptop are too small to concern yourself with when looking for something expensive to steal.

    Also, if you tie the encryption of the hard drive to a particular CPU then killing the CPU makes your information inaccessible.

    1. Re:Hard drives are cheap and easy to replace by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      Good point - I think that's the primary purpose like you say.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
  84. How is this anti-theft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Granted, if you are feeling vindictive, you can deny the thief the use of your laptop. Though in all likelihood, by the time you've exhausted other possibilities and actually convinced yourself to go through with the kill switch process, the thief would already have sold it to an unwitting party. Or even assuming that the thief wanted to keep the laptop, killing it is just going to give him a reason to steal another laptop from someone else, thereby increasing the number of thefts and victims. Sounds more to me like a pro-theft device.

    Is this supposed to be a deterrent effect? If so, how is this "feature" advertised to potential thieves? It would be the laptop manufacturer who has to make a highly visible statement on the chassis: "DON'T STEAL ME, I CAN BE REMOTELY DISABLED." That's actually what this feature boils down to, and is equally effective as a bluff with a 25-cent sticker.

    In either case, you do not get your laptop back. You would still be as much a victim of theft as before. Only now, you have the risk of accidentally killing your own laptop, or having malicious parties figure out how to kill yours. Thieves aren't going to look at the specs of your laptop before tucking it under their arm and walking off with it.

    Useless, risky, and draconian best sum up this idea.

  85. Other great advances by NetNed · · Score: 1

    I put this right up there with screen doors on submarines, Chocolate teapots, and rubber crutches.

  86. LMAO at \. comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "users have the >>>>option to set up their processor so that if their computer is lost or stolen, it can be shut down remotely" but some how people read this and assume Intel has full control of your CPU, along with the RIAA/MPAA or any other organization people here don't like. I akin this to the unique ID feature added to Intel processors a few years back that was optional and can be turned on or off in the BIOS but everyone was worried about it being some form of Big Brother conspiracy to track your every use of your computer. BTW the majority of the top 10 smartphones have a kill switch in them, you know, the ones all of you are using.

    1. Re:LMAO at \. comments by NetNed · · Score: 1

      I am not worried about known organization. It's the unknowns and people that would like to exploit it for their own amusement.

      Surely won't see me as a early adopter if they do come out with this.

  87. dear lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh the irresponsibility... Now that's a feature just waiting to be exploited. That feature serves no benefit to anyone other than big brother or criminals... oh, that's right, just criminals.

  88. Why? Not for consumer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What consumer would want a kill switch? Seriously, processors are so cheap, having this kill switch will only do one thing...namely give control of consumer computers to someone (cough* USA *cough). How about a "Really Kill" switch, that has some actual use...ie: kills the person with the chip...now that would be some awesome technology, and much harder for a government to hide....not that I am paranoid about government doing things it should not.... =)

  89. Anti-theft angle is just whitewashing by Dutchmaan · · Score: 2

    I don't believe this anti-theft crap for one second. You know what this is.. it's a kill switch for the **AA's to hold over your head. Mark my words this is not for YOUR security, it's security for your corporation/government.

    1. Re:Anti-theft angle is just whitewashing by Lohrno · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we already have the kill switch in all our intel processors, and they are just exposing it a bit so they can make it a selling point for consumers...

    2. Re:Anti-theft angle is just whitewashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Kill-switch is there for your own safety.

  90. Re:I think airplane autopilots are still on 386 20 by lsdi · · Score: 3, Informative

    A version of 386ex is used by Honeywell and Garmin in many products. They do have a kill switch as required by DO-254 standart. A dead processor is better than a crazy one.

  91. Misunderstanding Processor vs Platform by Glasswire · · Score: 1

    A really common mistake for people who don't know how processor generations work is to confuse things that are IN the cpu with things that are features in that generation of chipset incl wireless that arrive WITH that cpu. Intel Anti Theft is mostly a platform technology - it's mainly not about the cpu. But because it arrives as part of the Sandy Bridge generation platform, it's assumed to be a purely cpu technology. Hence the idiot, earlier that thought this meant 3G in the processor. Instead of being surprised at that, he should have reconsidered the premise that this IS all in the cpu

  92. MOD PARENT DOWN by Burz · · Score: 2

    This is public knowledge since 2006:

    The FBI appears to have begun using a novel form of electronic surveillance in criminal investigations: remotely activating a mobile phone's microphone and using it to eavesdrop on nearby conversations.

    The technique is called a "roving bug," and was approved by top U.S. Department of Justice officials for use against members of a New York organized crime family who were wary of conventional surveillance techniques such as tailing a suspect or wiretapping him.

    Nextel cell phones owned by two alleged mobsters, John Ardito and his attorney Peter Peluso, were used by the FBI to listen in on nearby conversations. The FBI views Ardito as one of the most powerful men in the Genovese family, a major part of the national Mafia.

    http://news.com.com/FBI+taps+cell+phone+mic+as+eavesdropping+tool/2100-1029_3-6140191.html

    Cellular carriers will remotely update the firmware of a smartphone by government request in order to turn your apparently inactive phone into an active microphone.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by sco08y · · Score: 1

      The *only* evidence your article produces is an affidavit that refers to a "listening device placed in the cellular telephone," which it says could be software or hardware.

      Either way, they had to either put something in there physically or upload some software. They can't just switch any phone's mic on.

    2. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by Burz · · Score: 1

      Either way, they had to either put something in there physically or upload some software. They can't just switch any phone's mic on.

      They can do it with any reprogrammable phone.

      BTW, you're a moron if you think FBI agents would try to physically modify and add to the electronics
      of today's ultra compact cell phones.

      Verizon's response to a press inquiry on that case was that it "works closely with law enforcement and public safety officials. When presented with legally authorized orders, we assist law enforcement in every way possible." And its software updates, NOT hardware, that are possible.

  93. Indeed, if they were really concerned by Burz · · Score: 2

    ...about protecting the consumer from computer theft, they would target the HD and RAM (where data is held). "Security RAM" that instantly self-erases when it is disturbed could be a beneficial feature for some.

    Instead, the only significant thing Intel's new feature does is give the US government a channel for denying powerful CPUs to its enemies during a conflict.

  94. What is Intel thinking? by Sepiraph · · Score: 1

    And where is the backdoor, via 3G no less. p.s. Anti-theft should be available at the OS level, not at the CPU level.

  95. Re:I think airplane autopilots are still on 386 20 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Still" implies things haven't changed since the heyday of 386 boxen.

    For those thinking just that, it's more the case that mission critical tech relies on *older* tech due to the cost of hardening circuitry to random solarflare bitflips and whatnot. When a 386 was a beastly rig, something from the early 80s would have been the choice.

  96. Wonderful... by froggymana · · Score: 1

    Now big brother can watch every bit of my life...

    --
    "To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
  97. Faraday Cage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Problem solved!

  98. Chrome OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This feature looks just up Chrome OS's alley. As other posters have pointed out, it's the data (typically in the form of the hard disk) that's important, not the processor. So, imagine a cloud-based computer like Chrome OS being stolen. Your data's mostly safe, so you can afford to spite the thief by having the Chromeputer remotely bricked.

  99. Oh my... by puterg33k · · Score: 1

    I'd think that any bit of security at this point that would be implaced by a corperation as large as this one would have some alignment with the US government. Of course this will be exploited, anything that can be exploited will be. I'm starting to feel as if it's time that big brother, big mother, and our even bigger father to lay the hell off. I just hope that more people start to feel that way. Of course this is all speculation... I'm really not that tech savy compaird to most of you. However, I do feel that most of the freedoms that people so much better than myself died for, are long gone.

    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. -Ben Franklin

  100. already on sale by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

    Intel is announcing this processor at CES on january, but it's already being sold. I am in australia for the holidays, and just bought a i5-2300 sandy bridge with a gigabyte motherboard, 8 gigs ddr3 ram and ati 5770 for less than 750, which is to say cheap considering where i am.

  101. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    uhh I'll be putting a Cellular Network Jammer next to my computer, can buy one @ www.dealextreme.com

  102. Re:Tracking shutting down by mlts · · Score: 1

    This kill switch will help in casual theft cases. Drunk corporate officer leaves laptop in nightclub. It gets grabbed by a club rat. Next day, IT disables the CPU. If the machine is found again, recovering the data even with an erased TPM isn't hard. BitLocker can store the recovery bits in Active Directory, or even as a data recovery agent, so if the laptop is recovered, the key can be reinputted and the TPM information resealed, or the drive can be unlocked and mounted by IT for document recovery.

  103. Re:Tracking shutting down by tftp · · Score: 1

    This kill switch will help in casual theft cases. Drunk corporate officer leaves laptop in nightclub. It gets grabbed by a club rat. Next day, IT disables the CPU.

    I fail to see the advantage of disabling the CPU here, as long as the laptop already has full disk encryption. It is completely integrated (we used PGP Whole Disk Encryption) and invisible to the user; it's just you enter your password earlier.

    With regard to the recovery of the laptop, both this "kill switch" and the WDE do the same thing; you reenter the key and the HDD gets decrypted. The difference is small and technical: the kill switch physically wipes the key from the integrated TPM, whereas WDE simply doesn't have the necessary secret (your passphrase) to generate the HDD decryption key.

    If we start assuming that the passphrase is known to the thief then all bets are off anyway - he can instantly boot it up and copy the data before the loss is detected, even if you use an ansible to send the signal. Your drunken sales droid is not likely to realize that the notebook is lost until he wakes up in the morning, and there wouldn't be any password written on the laptop itself.

    An industrial spy can steal a notebook from a company office. They actually do that, and it's not too difficult. They dress appropriately, tailgate an employee, look around, take what they need and leave, all within 5 minutes. In a larger office there is no way for workers to detect an extra person. In this scenario if the password is written somewhere at the cubicle the thief can have it. Then both methods converge - the thief takes the laptop into a shielded room (a basement) and does his thing there.

    You pay for the WDE software only once (as opposed to the continuous 3G service.) Then the laptop doesn't depend on 3G availability to lock the thief out - it's safe by default. This means that you have to have WDE anyway. So what exactly the CPU block buys you if the HDD can't be accessed? Do you (or the company) want to pay money for the service to simply annoy the thief? Most companies can't care less about the laptop hardware, these notebooks are often leased for the duration of the refresh cycle, and/or insured. Companies care about the data, and WDE protects it pretty well. So again, how exactly the kill switch will *improve* security above & beyond existing solutions?

    IMO, Intel proposes this simply because they can, and because that's the only security option they can think of. It's a poor option, on par with the unique CPU ID, and it will be equally disabled on majority of notebooks. I think they added it just for a checkbox on sales materials. Technically it is worthless for pretty much everyone and will not be used. Low-end users, like that sales guy, will find this an overkill. High-end users, like CIA, will find this inadequate. Middle-range users already have WDE and have no need to pay for a service that disables a chip that doesn't do anything anyway.

  104. Remote? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What they are not telling us is the miniature microphone next to the switch...

  105. Re:I think airplane autopilots are still on 386 20 by Seth+Kriticos · · Score: 1

    I think you are right about that, and the reason is, that the processors have to be very resilient against external influences, like the elevated radiation up at around 1km height (~4k feet).

    I know they do special hardened chips for anything that goes to space, as the most important thing up there is reliability. I imagine it's similar for planes, though not that extreme.

    Besides the simpler and more robust build for these chips, the probably also draw much less power than a modern workhorse processor, and that's pretty critical when the power goes out and you are flying on a little emergency battery.

    There is also the tons of optimized code for these things. Developing airplane control software is not exactly like building a website, and it's expensive as hell (multiple reviews of every line, test cases ad infinitum, etc.). The current software works well on that architecture, so there is no inherent reason to quickly switch (unless the production lines run dry, of course).

  106. Re:I think airplane autopilots are still on 386 20 by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    mission critical tech relies on *older* tech due to the cost of hardening circuitry

    Exactly. It's not so much the speed of the part, it's the size of the transistors. A modern gate is about 1/15th the size of the ones in a 386. It's like comparing hitting a coffee cup with a tennis ball, and hitting a beer keg (although, the proton is much smaller than a tennis ball on that scale).

  107. Well, the SMS sucks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can already do a remote kill via SMS. It's built into all Nokia E71s and I assume other models.

  108. Reception? by spider256 · · Score: 1

    Reception anyone? 3G only covers 25% of the country. So most people don't have to worry about this.

  109. No thanks by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    But thanks for letting me know what to avoid.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  110. First customer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WikiLeaks

  111. No deterrent to criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I steal your computer, and wrap it in foil. No 3G signal, no kill switch. This isn't put in for the goal of personal security, it's something else.

    1. Re:No deterrent to criminals by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      My phone still works fine while wrapped in tin foil.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  112. Sandy Bridge by Rabbidous · · Score: 1

    In other news, Intel codenames their processor a perfect stripper name.

  113. Dispelling some myths by Agar · · Score: 1
    This comment might be irrelevant since it's so far down the stack, but here are some facts about this technology (I work for PGP (now Symantec), and we just released software to support it):
    • This isn't stealth technology - it's the opposite of stealth. Not only is it completely opt-in, you have to pay for it.
    • This isn't in the processor, it's in support chips - they've added a "manageability engine" ("ME") to the chipset, not the processor.
    • The SMS capability requires an integrated 3G modem from another vendor. There are specs that let the modem be connected to the ME, but I only know of one modem vendor that supports this today. If you don't have the SMS support, it still works over TCP/IP when the laptop connects to the Internet (assuming your management server has a leg in the DMZ)
    • To support Anti-Theft, the laptop needs to go through an "activation" process that binds the laptop to a corporate, on-premises management server. Only this server can disable a laptop, and only via a command issued at the server. In other words, you call IT, you say your machine's been stolen, they shut it down.
    • It's recoverable. You realize your brother just borrowed it, you call IT, they reactivate it.
    • We're tying it to our whole disk encryption product, so all user credentials are also locked up when the kill pill is sent. This way, (a) your data is safe, and (b) even a weak password can't be brute forced. An attacker now needs to break a recovery token with 256 bits of entropy to get your data. We don't even let you buy anti-theft unless you already have WDE.
    • It's not just about anti-theft. If you're taking your machine through customs, into a hostile area, or even shipping it across the country, you can now have it completely locked and cryptographically secure (even from insiders). If it gets "lost" in shipment, then you recover the laptop cost from insurance - but don't worry about the data loss.
    • The idea is that if you slap an Anti-Theft sticker on the laptop, then a thief will move on to another system instead of stealing yours (expect a robust aftermarket in stickers ;-) )
    • You can use the same thing for decommissioning. You can send a "data kill pill" that lets you remotely wipe the user credentials, but leave the machine operational. This way you can sell a fleet of old laptops without worrying about all your (or your employees) data being sold on the open market.
    • You can also set up a set of timers, so a laptop can be disabled if it doesn't check into your server for a configurable period of time or there are too many failed password tries. (This is a management server on your corporate network that also lets your admin set policy, see encryption state, last seen date, etc. so you know if a machine was encrypted when it was stolen.)
    • No government, **AA, or third party can remotely disable the machine without access to the management server. This isn't about big brother, it's about trying to keep your data safe.

    None of this is nearly as much fun as some of the comments I've read, but it happens to be true.

    1. Re:Dispelling some myths by eyenot · · Score: 1

      Even the NSA now openly admits what Kevin Mitnick, Dmitri Sklyarov, and most readers of 2600 and Slashdot already knew: that there is no such thing as infallible security, that any usable portal is an exploitable one, and that pretending otherwise is the antithesis of security.
      ( http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/12/17/1540256 ).

      The whole "counterculture" if you will of open-sourcers work with this concept as precept. People already distrust Intel somewhat because of allegations of backroom dealing with the likes of Microsoft over the usage of hidden opcodes, and allegations that Intel tried to set legal precedent that deciphering the purpose of hidden opcodes in their processors for end-user purposes amounts to industrial espionage.

      The Clipper device wasn't very popular with consumers despite assurances that it was for their security. And given the facts about exploitation, Sandy Bridges isn't much different from a Clipper with delusions of vigilante grandeur, and with the difference of being a kill-switch instead of a listening port. The similarity: both present the possibility of the product performing not-as-intended and potentially without the user having any control over it, as a side-effect of insecurities albeit already resident in the consumer but also inflamed by the marketing behind the device. On the technical side, just the whole fact that it's reversible practically screams "useless" to somebody who knows that they'll eventually find a way to trip it either way they want at a whim, or just circumvent it.

      If it's about protecting data, there are already numerous ways of replicating the performance of this Sandy Bridges feature without having any special hardware installed. You can be sure that your encrypted data will not be misused even if the equipment is stolen, even if that equipment is a 80286. And from the description, even as a lo-jack it's sort of "fail" especially considering it doesn't sound anything at all like what the average computer user can find accessible, unless they feel like investing hella cash and trusting their ISP as "home server". Even if you can present some ideal model situation where the encrypted protection and lojack features work every time, opening them up to the outside world isn't sane or more usable, it's James Bond wannabe versus Dick Tracy wannabe bullcrap for the masses, and as some here predict, it's likely going to spell doom for the entire processor line and the investments of all the consumers who support it.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    2. Re:Dispelling some myths by thijsh · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the interesting details of this tech.

      But even given the intended operation you have to admit there still might be a bit of unintended operations possible. If there is a preprogrammed code the management server can learn from the processor during the activation process you are not sure this code isn't already on some list before the CPU leaves the Intel factory. When the encrypted SMS arrives with the proper code the CPU has no way of knowing if the source was the management server or some government or hacker. And even when the agreed code is signed by the management server private key (which seems to be the case when I read your description) the CPU can just as well be programmed to also always accept an alternate master key...

      And before you try to convince us the NSA would not pull tricks like this consider the fact that backdoors have been added to encryption technology for quite some time. Especially given the fact that you are tying this into the whole disk encryption screams 'exploitable by the government'. And not just able to kill at a distance but more along the lines of being able to retrieve disk encryption keys... full disk encryption is a headache for intelligence agencies and using the largest CPU manufacturer to sneak in a backdoor in would seem like a completely logical action from an intelligence perspective so they can decrypt the drive when they come upon a laptop with this kind of CPU. And what better way of hiding this than by claiming it's a corporate thing that keeps your data safe...

      I'm not about to get all paranoid tinfoil hat here, but reasoning with some historic facts it doesn't seem so unlikely. From the intelligence perspective an addition like this would be too great an opportunity to assume they haven't jumped on this.

  114. This is really a way for "Big Brother" to disable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm.. sounds like "the man" wants a backdoor to disable you.

  115. Re:I think airplane autopilots are still on 386 20 by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    Probably due to the Pentium math bug. They don't dare to upgrade to a more modern processor due to the risk of bugs in more complicated processors.

    It would be very bad if aircrafts crashed due to a hardware bug, and it could prove fatal for the processor manufacturer.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  116. Protected Audio / Video Path by madclicker · · Score: 1

    Will the above feature also be enabled on these chips?

    --
    "History is the realm of the true lie." A.Szerb
  117. What was Intel Thinking or did they get a subsidy? by FutureExpressionist · · Score: 1

    Another stroke of brilliance (sarcasm) and another brick in the wall. I wonder what kinds of discussion occurred and with whom at Intel's marketing department on how they would sell this to the "sleeping lemmings". Where might such a requirement might have arisen? Incorporation of a mobile 3G transceiver onto the die doesn't come for free. Speculation: Can you spell US government subsidy to INTEL for each Sandy Bridge Processor sold? This is or may become a path for surveillance of non-internet connected computers with a handy marketable AntiTheft angle. Security asset? This is an I/T security nightmare! This should yield some interesting posts in the future as we read how this access point will be exploited. If this story is true, one should think twice about purchasing INTEL CPUs. Consider other processors and virtualized Intel machines.

  118. Re:I think airplane autopilots are still on 386 20 by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

    Most servers sold are quad core.

  119. PARENT WRONG, MOD PARENT DOWN by IBitOBear · · Score: 1

    Yea, I do work in classified and higher environments. We are not allowed to bring cell phones into closed containers. In on of the DOD demonstrations they get a cell phone from the audience and remotely activate it as a wiretap in real time.

    This is not a "myth", its that other thing, what is that called again, oh yea, a "fact".

    No special application required either. See your cell phone _is_ the application. It is running all the time the phone is on, it listens to commands and responds to them.

    For a day-to-day proof. Go buy a new cell phone. Put the battery in. Then don't turn it on for a day. When you do turn it on it will have been "provisioned" even though it was "off". Go buy another cell phone and take the battery out immediately for 24 hours. I will not work when you finally put the battery in and turn it on. This is because the provisioning messages couldn't find and program your phone because the receiver had no power. In the latter case you will probably have to call the cell phone provider and ask them to re-send your provisioning. This request will _not_ confuse even the first-tier support people.

    If your phone has power, it can be turned on and off and reprogrammed all from the other end using just your IMEI and maybe your GSM key. Both of these things are known to your provider as a requirement of providing service to you.

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
  120. How can foreign governments buy Intel now? by rbarreira · · Score: 1

    Why would a foreign government buy Intel CPUs, knowing that the US gov could force Intel to shut them down? It seems like a deal breaker for any

    --

    The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  121. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who else has that option. Hmmmm I wonder...

  122. Re:I think airplane autopilots are still on 386 20 by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

    It's like comparing hitting a coffee cup with a tennis ball

    Roger Federer can knock a can off your head with his serve. That would put him into the 486 class.

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  123. Woo waa by eyenot · · Score: 1

    Intel -- It's Inside. It's Insiiiiiiiiiide of yoooooouuuuuuuu. Intellllllllllll.

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  124. Re:I think airplane autopilots are still on 386 20 by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

    Older processes use the larger feature size which makes them inherently more robust against radiation. Background counts are already quite a lot higher at 30,000 feet. Also you generally just don't need the horse power anyway.

    --
    The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  125. Re:I think airplane autopilots are still on 386 20 by Kvasio · · Score: 1

    also, in an airplane you don't want them shut over 3G network by, say, freshly graduated moron at DHS mistyping processor number

  126. ICnet works on the data stored too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excuse the shameless plug, but I would be foolish not to point out that this technology would be a great compliment to our software that locates, locks down, and protects the sensitive data on Windows/Mac/Linux based notebooks, tablets, and desktop computers as well as smartphones. Check it out here: http://www.i-contain.com/icnet.php