Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel's Sandy Bridge Processor Has a Kill Switch

Posted by timothy on from the no-mr-chip-I-expect-you-to-die dept.

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."

22 of 399 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    2. 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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!
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

  2. 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)

  3. 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.

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

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

  5. 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.

  6. 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.
  7. Great for governments by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    Do. Not. Want.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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.

  12. 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 :-)