Slashdot Mirror
Intel's ME May Be Massively Infringing on Minix3's Free Software License (ipwatchdog.com)
Software engineer (and IP Watchdog contributor) Fredrik Ohrstrom (a.k.a. Slashdot reader anjara) writes:
Almost all Free Software licenses (BSD, MIT, GPL...) require some sort of legal notice (legal attribution) given to the recipient of the software, both when the software is distributed in source and in binary forms. The legal notice usually contains the copyright holder's name and the license text. This means that it's not possible to hide and keep secret the existence of Free Software that you have stuck into your product that you distribute. If you do so, then you are not complying with the Free Software license and you are committing a copyright infringement!
This is exactly what Intel seems to have done with the Intel ME. The Minix3 operating system license requires a legal notice, but so far it seems like Intel has not given the necessary legal notices. (Probably because they want to keep the inside of the ME secret.) Thus not only is Minix3 the most installed OS on our recent x86 CPUs -- but it might also the most pirated OS on our recent x86 CPUs!
This is exactly what Intel seems to have done with the Intel ME. The Minix3 operating system license requires a legal notice, but so far it seems like Intel has not given the necessary legal notices. (Probably because they want to keep the inside of the ME secret.) Thus not only is Minix3 the most installed OS on our recent x86 CPUs -- but it might also the most pirated OS on our recent x86 CPUs!
They're a corporation.
Lol.
Not sure if shitposting or retarded...
"Intel's ME **May** Be Massively Infringing on Minix3's Free Software License "
[Emphasis mine].
No. They aren't Even the author of Minix thinks it's fine. He thinks it's rude they didn't even tell him. But but didn't have to.
http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel/
The same analogy as you have to pay a fee for looking at other buildings to build your house.
It's not unusual to look to the work of others to learn from their mistakes when you do something new.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Intel paid for a license and the parties involved are under an NDA.
But honestly I think we still need to focus on developing CPUs and SoC for which the end-users have complete control over every aspect if we want to inevitably gain control over our devices. We also need a complete set of source code for other chipsets. From wifi an GSM modem chips to graphics and keyboard controllers. It seems that right now the only real project with any progress aiming to do that is EOMA68. Unfortunately this stuff take YEARs and we still don't ultimately have a card or standard compliant device in hand yet. Though there are people already at work on CPUs and similar so it's a start and we do have EOMA68 designs that work and prototypes even if the final cards and devices aren't yet shipping.
Note that Intel doesn't violate IP, it licenses it. The idea that Intel could violate an IP law is ludicrous.
... For now.
1.) AST published an open letter, and the fact that the disclaimers are not posted does not seem to bother him much.
See here: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel...
2.) Minix3 License, states that, when distributed in Binary form, the DOCUMENTATION has to reproduce the copyright notice and, well, there is no documentation whatsoever abut the ME.
See here: https://github.com/Stichting-M...
Having said that, security through obscurity is not a sensible policy, and AST's courtesy is not enough. If intel is using minix, they should say so and print the license.
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
The Minix3 standard license is four sentences:
http://git.minix3.org/index.cg...
The second clause / sentence of the license is:
--
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
--
Intel did not comply with that. Intel violated the license. That's a fact. Tanenbaum isn't too mad about it, and that's fine. If he chooses not to sue them that's all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that they did not comply with the license. Note Minix can ALSO be licensed under other terms - a company can contact the copyright holders to negotiate a different license, which may include payment. Intel didn't do that.
They had no right to make and sell copies of Minix as part of their CPU, since they didn't do so under the normal license.
Many years ago, Minix wasn't open source. It was sold for $69 / copy. After inflation that's about $150 in 2017 dollars. If Intel has unlawfully sold 500 million copies which they'd now need to pay Tanenbaum for - well he could be a very rich man if he chose to. Even at $1 per copy that's $500 million that Intel owes him.
For those who wanted to know.
This does indeed require that something shipped with the hardware should say that MINIX is in there. Even if there is no documentation provided.
The BSD license is the most infringed. Most companies get this wrong. Many of them can tell you why they don't use GPL, and then they infringe on the BSD license, putting themselves in exactly the same place (being a copyright infringer) as if they had used GPL.
Bruce Perens.
The author of MINIX, Andrew Tannenbaum, wrote a public letter about hearing that MINIX was in the Management Engine. He did not indicate that Intel had any form of special license or had even informed him that MINIX was in the management engine.
He might not care that he's being infringed, he might not even have figured that out. But it really does look like he's being infringed.
Bruce Perens.
He has already admitted to this, decades ago already. Leave the guy alone. Minix is dead. Long live Linux.
"ME is turning into a colossal dumpster fire."
Or maybe the equivalent of a billion dollar ad campaign against Intel.
Customers don't want spyware. It seems that, if Intel continues to try to force spyware on customers, Intel will eventually go bankrupt. That would be a very, very bad conclusion to the very, very bad management by Intel.
It is EXTREMELY important for the entire world, in my opinion, that Intel stay healthy. (The world needs AMD to stay healthy, also.)
Did the present Intel managers lack the social ability to understand that providing hidden access for hidden invaders would damage Intel's reputation? Apparently Intel needs a new CEO. Maybe other Intel managers should be replaced, also. Most of the technology development parts of Intel has seemed healthy to me; it's the business management that is failing, apparently.
The world was told more than 3 years ago about the hidden control: Secret of Intel Management Engine by Igor Skochinsky. (Mar 12, 2014)
Intel was told that there would be problems: Intel's Management Engine is a security hazard, and users need a way to disable it. (May 8, 2017)
Did the present managers lack the social ability to understand that it was likely that hackers would find defects in the Intel Management Engine? One article: Intel Patches Major Flaws in the Intel Management Engine. (Nov 22, 2017) Intel's reaction: Intel Management Engine Critical Firmware Update (Intel-SA-00086). (Dec 5, 2017)
He most certainly has NOT done that. Fake news.
bsd, unlike boost requires attribution. that's literally all it requires, and they can't do that?
People forget that the software author can always privately license software under whatever terms they like. The likelihood of a company like Intel improperly licensing a piece of software is highly unlikely when more likely is that they obtained a license allowing them to do with it what they want.
If I or anyone else publishes a work of open source software, we can always negotiate a different license with a company or individual to suit their purposes.
This isn't unlike the people who freak out when a company has a piece of software they've licensed as open source, but charge for it, then don't have the source freely available - because people think the GPL requires source to be given away when it doesn't. The source must only be made available at reasonable distribution/copying costs when the binaries are distributed. If I want to charge a million dollars for a piece of open-source software I've written, I don't have to give away the source to anyone except the person who bought a license to the software, but a different license can always be negotiated.
People forget that the software author can always privately license software under whatever terms they like. The likelihood of a company like Intel improperly licensing a piece of software is highly unlikely when more likely is that they obtained a license allowing them to do with it what they want.
If I or anyone else publishes a work of open source software, we can always negotiate a different license with a company or individual to suit their purposes.
This isn't unlike the people who freak out when a company has a piece of software they've licensed as open source, but charge for it, then don't have the source freely available - because people think the GPL requires source to be given away when it doesn't. The source must only be made available at reasonable distribution/copying costs when the binaries are distributed. If I want to charge a million dollars for a piece of open-source software I've written, I don't have to give away the source to anyone except the person who bought a license to the software, but a different license can always be negotiated.
0x68ADA2CC
I'm willing to bet that if you can actually get a shell into the management engine Minix instance, and browse to /usr/share/doc or wherever, the license probably actually is in fact there, so the letter of the license is almost certainly fulfilled (because the license is going to be in the upstream distribution of Minix, and it would be extra work *and* would invite legal trouble for Intel to remove it, so why bother?), even if the spirit is violated.
You're quite correct. The Minix license is visible at https://github.com/minix3/mini... .
I'm not convinced BSD is the most infringed license, but you seem correct that infringing it is common place. One reason difficulty is that the BSD license does not have the clear consequences that GPL violation does, that violation loses access to all other GPL licenses from the same copyright owner. The Free Software Foundation has been using this successfully to enforce GPL compliance.
So copyright infringement is a bad thing now? Funny how when people brag about all the programs and movies they've "pirated", all of which have explicit copyright information, the opinion is, "Fuck 'em" or , "it's not enforceable" or any number of reasons why taking someone's elses ones and zeros isn't an issue. But now, because it's "free" software with copyright information, suddenly it's an issue.
If you're going to claim taking someone elses work without payment or attribution which has copyright information isn't a big deal, then neither is this.
Remember SCO? They stupidly sued because they thought they could prove Linux came from Minix. Minix has a tiny tiny amount of murky header sharing and ancestry with BSD Unix in a way that they might actually have a hope.
Horribly.
Once Wintel is out of the way (AMD Included!) there will be room in the market for competition as software has to be compiled for multiple cpu architectures, instead of just being x86/x86_64, and maybe if you are really lucky, for some ARM variant.
Furthermore if x86 dies, there will now be room for both a new bios/firmware/boot environment as well as new cross-platform operating systems.
Sure it could all go to hell again, but this would be the first step towards leaving that opening available... sort of like the opening Intel, AMD, and ARM vendors are leaving open into all of our 10 year old pieces of hardware, or in the case of cell phones 15-20+ year old ones.
Intel do have lawyers, and free software folk that understand licensing.
I'm sure they are capable of working out that all they need to do to be in compliance is to include the copyright notice somewhere in the binary blob that is ME.
Has anyone actually been in a position to check if they did that or not?
If not, I suspect that this is a non-story.
Also, even if AST were upset enough to sue (which does not appear to be the case), I don't suppose it would cost much to shut him up.
Are there any other copyright holders with standing here? (Minix used to be a one-person thing, but perhaps he's been accepting diverse contributions since relaxing the license). Even so, if they did include some sort of copyright notice, there's nothing for other copyright holders to say either.
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
The least Intel could do is dropping some sort funding on the MINIX 3 project.
This could be the legal lever to force intel to provide a wipe to disable this backdoor.
"Is there any other way in which we could screw over our customers?" "I can't think of anything, but maybe Stallman came up with something in the meantime?" -- Later -- "Oh God no, who would stand for that?" "Well, if Stallman is against it, people will likely accept it."
See subject: It's BIGGEST problem (other than a blank logon string issue) Intel AMT/ME has & it's unpatchable http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/12/06/intel_management_engine_pwned_by_buffer_overflow/
APK
P.S.=> I know how to make it totally harmless via port filtering on a router EXTERNAL to the motherboard though so no big deal https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11425437&cid=55656927/ ... apk
Intel sends resources (money) on developing a feature that makes chips more expensive to produce. The feature is not documented, there's no gain for the user, its not helping in any way to sell more CPUs. i.e., money spent for nothing. This reduces the value of the shares unnecessarily.
Shareholders should sue Intel.
Corporations have no right to waste money in any way they please without keeping the owners informed.
You should have logged in. You could have won the internet in the "Most Stupid and Misinformed Post" category. Hint: Tanenbaum argued that Linux should take the Minix / Microkernel approach which Linux rejected in favor of a monolithic approach.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
So.. What you are essentially saying that the Year of the Linux/Minix desktop started decades ago??
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
For servers that's fine, since that's a more educated audience. For laptops which go towards a wider audience, ME needs to be OFF in every sense of the word. Corporate customers can turn it on as needed.
where there are multiple architectures, you could reasonably expect people to write most software in high level languages, in a portable way.
It costs money to support multiple architectures and multiple operating systems. Even though cross-compilation is possible, cross-testing is a bit more expensive, as it's not quite as practical to judge user interface responsiveness when you're relying on remote access to a leased VPS of the appropriate architecture through RDP, VNC, X11, GoToMyPC, LogMeIn, or the like. If a smaller company hasn't yet ramped up its collection of target hardware on which to test, end users will end up seeing notices like this on its applications:
x86-64: Buy Now
MIPS64: Sign Up to be notified when we expand to your architecture.
AArch64: Sign Up to be notified when we expand to your architecture.
RISC-V: Sign Up to be notified when we expand to your architecture.
I will hide Intel (c) in their products.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Counter-counter argument: "I never would have bought it anyway". Works for pirates. Works for Intel.
I wonder if the folks that determine MInix was in it could face federal prosecution for DMCA.
Sometimes it's not about right or wrong, but about how deep the pockets go.
Replies to:
"Our feelings are not doing any financial or reputational damage to the Intel brand."
and to:
"... what are the geeks (such a small market that it can not be measured) going to do about it?"
It is common, I've observed, that technically-knowledgeable people believe they should not get involved with social issues. In fact, however, they have discussions like this one and have a huge amount of power.
What are the legal issues? Can you recommend Intel or AMD hardware without telling the managers of your company or your customers that the hardware is not secure? Could you go to prison for knowingly selling insecure hardware without informing the customers in a way that causes them to fully understand? Suppose a company loses millions of dollars because Intel hardware you recommended was found to be hackable, especially since that kind of vulnerability has already happened. Can you be found liable?
"Intel has been richly rewarded for implementing ME and with AMD implementing similar backdoors..."
Intel SHOULD be "richly rewarded" for that. "Implementing ME" was a good idea. The issue is that was done in a way that Intel has kept hidden, and in a way that customers who don't need that feature are not allowed to understand and cannot control.
It seems to me that the business side of Intel is not being managed well. What I know about Intel management is from talking with Intel employees, sometimes at conventions, sometimes at social events not connected with technology, visiting an Intel campus during an open house event, and from news stories.
Here is one example of what I have learned, from a 2013 news story:
Intel has been emitting fluoride for years without state knowledge, permit. (Sept. 24, 2013)
Quote from that story: "When Intel applied for D1X approval, the company considered its fluoride emissions insignificant and did not include those. It was only when the company applied for the new DEQ permit required by greenhouse gas regulations that it [Intel] requested a 6.4-tons-per-year fluoride emission limit."
Intel is putting 6.4 TONS EACH YEAR of fluoride compounds into the air around its plant! Does that seem to you to be good business management?
My understanding is that there are many areas of bad business management at Intel. The central technological group, however, seems to me to be well-managed. For example, in recent years Intel has released CPUs that provide the same computational power, but lower the electrical energy required. That achievement is good for all humans on the planet.
You may be right. Tanenbaum or others at the University may be able to subpeona the code. I'm sending him a link to your post.
This seems like a great tool to use to force Intel to disable all the MEs out there. Since we know this is a very large security hole, at least with processors based on and newer than Sandy Bridge, it seems the right thing for Minix3 to do.
99% of end users of intel CPUs do NOT want it. Now that they are beginning to realise what has been forced upon the.. the market will become ripe for the picking if they don't address the issue of ME being mandatory for the average user.
In general, anyone who was harmed by an unlawful act can sue. The plaintiff would show that:
1) The defendant did an unlawful act (including torts such as negligence)
And
2) That unlawful act caused harm to the plaintiff
In Megabyte vs Nvidia, the copyright infringement may have constituted unfair competition or unfair trade practices under state law. The court ruled that *if certain specific conditions are met*, the federal Copyright Act preempts state common law and the plaintiffs did not prevail.
So while *in general* anyone harmed by unlawful conduct has standing to sue, the Copyright Act specifically limits that, under certain conditions. There's not a clear, bright-line answer to these general types of cases.
Separately, *criminal* copyright infringement can be charged by a federal prosecutor. Criminal infringement is defined as:
infringes a copyright willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain ...valued at over $2,500
Millions of copies of Minix is more than $2,500 of value, so if Intel was willfull in their infringement they are guilty of criminal copyright infringement.
Intel isn't often this stupid. I propose an alternate explanation - NSL by the TLA's demanded they add this backdoor. And can't talk about it. We know this happens to other firms. Occam's razor.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
Andrew Tanenbaum replied to me / us 20 minutes after I sent him a link to your post. He figures Intel would be will to spend millions fighting a subpeona, so it's not worth it. :(
I see this differently.
For the Copyright, the first things that matter here are:
1) What the copyright says (You have to put the copyright string in the binary file)
2) What Intel did (They probably did, and even though they are not required to do so, they may have also provided a way to display it.)
3) Possibly what the author wants to do. (In the unlikely event that Intel didn't, then he might be a Billionaire and Intel hits a speed bump.)
I don't know of any university that would not like to have an extra $Billion. If Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam thought they had a case they would go for it. The fact that they haven't says there is unlikely to be much truth to copyright violation claims here.
That said, I applaud the noble effort to try to find some leverage to get Intel to clean up their ME engine story.
This as a terrible, short sighted security plan that our computing critical infrastructure depends on.
It seems criminal and really dumb on their part.
It exposes them to amazing liability.
Sadly,even if Intel totally ignored the copyright rules, I don't see a copyright violation as leverage to help this.
Instead of asking about copyrights, it might be more interesting to figure out why Intel wants this stuff closed?
A Tin Foil Hat might say the TLA's like it.
Intel might say it is to protect their wonderful Intellectual property.
The gadget they build has a complicated set of constraints. (Performance, compatibility, market.)
I suspect that making a stable CPU is hard to do and you are probably always forced to ship with compromises.
Compromises you would rather not disclose unless you have to.
The ME gives them a nice hiding spot for that.
If their silicon has bugs and the ME allows them to patch around them, then do they have to disclose the bugs to their customers?
Given that Intel has the single thread performance, what to do?
Give up some of the constraints. (Compatibility with everything and market requirement for speed over everything.)
If somebody has a real plan for how to build new simple but fast cpu, I'd bet that Google, Facebook, and Amazon would find a way to get it done.
There is a range, but basically $750 per copy, up to $150,000 per work. So Intel owes Tanenbaum $150,000, or whatever damages he can prove.
the jews where forced to wear Pieces Of Flair
Stay healthy? Management ensured it never was.
Read Intel's history!
This might be related to something I noticed in a video of Linus at a keynote speech where he was asked if he ever was asked by the NSA to install a backdoor into Linux. He responded, "No" while nodding yes. It makes me wonder if he refused to allow Intel to incorporate Linux into Intel ME so Intel had to go with Minix instead. And, Intel/NSA learned their lesson the second time by keeping the author in the dark about their real purpose. Which is why the author of Minix was surprised when he learned every Intel chip in the world contained his operating system.
"ME is turning into a colossal dumpster fire."
Or maybe the equivalent of a billion dollar ad campaign against Intel.
Yeah, but in favor of whom ?
Look the other giant desktop/workstation/server CPUs maker :
AMD.
Since the curent Zen generation (and in laptop APU, since the previous generation, too) they have AMD PSP : an ARM core, which has few useful uses (storing keys like TPM, can be used to encrypt RAM transparentrly to avoid VMs trying to hack each other, etc.) but is a closed signed blob that can't be audited and has full RAM and bus access.
(at least luckily, unlike Intel ME/AMT it doesn't listen on the network by default, doesn't handle firmware flashing, and doesn't keep working even when the CPU is powered off. These "light-out management" functionnality are usually handled by dedicated IPMI chips on server hardware - which luckily listens on a separate network).
Though it seems that, in the light of the Intel ME scandals, AMD are trying to provide ways to make the PSP stop communicate with the outside once the system has initialised.
Take a step further back and at other giant CPU manufacturer :
Qualcomm, the top maker of smartphone ARM SoCs.
Situation is even worse. On their socs, to make thing a tiny bit cheaper and a few functionnality easier, the baseband modem is integrated into the main SoC. And is in charge of tons of low-level functionnality - Init, RAM, etc. (basically, the modem serves as the chipset's northbridge).
The problem, is that for legal reason it cannot run arbitrary code (because it communicates over special radio frequencies that aren't open but licensed, unlike the usual 2.4Ghz used by Wifi/BT/etc). The baseband modem can only legally run code (enforced by signatures checks) that is written by people holding the necessary license to emit stuff on the restricted frequencies used by 3G/4G.
So only telco service providers and chipsets manufacturer can send code (with OTA) to the northbridge of your smartphone to run.
That's why projects like Purism's Librem 5 have to resort to underpowered unusual chips like Freescale 6mx / 8mx. That's about the largest popular manufacturer from which they can get SoC that don't require running any proprietary blob.
There's litteraly no huge big CPU manufacturer where you can avoid blobs at very frightening access levels to RAM.
But hey, at least all the above blobs are successfully used to handle DRM and thus online streaming works flawlessly. And all the clueless users are happy about their internet-TV working out of the box.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
# cat /usr/share/doc/LICENSE
Fuck You!!!
All your base are belong to us.
We can and will do whatever the fuck we want.
Fuck You!!!
# echo $?
0
#
Where'd Khyber note port filtering vs. this? I did for MONTHS now (after the person 'spamming it' (which I didnt' consider it that him warning us of Intel AMT/ME as much as he did - got me looking into it & this fix? WORKS!)) - see subject & show us that BEFORE I ever posted it - you can't.
FACT: Khyber's a mental case & hasn't done squat of note in the art & science of computing! Yes, I know it's YOU Khyber...
* Even Marcus Hutchins' (?) that's also in trouble for allegedly writing some botnet "magic bit" won't fix this problem Intel AMT/ME has!
My method, does.
APK
P.S.=> Khyber's welcome to show he posted it before I can show I did & he NEVER ever noted port filtering that I've ever seen & as far as my hosts file being 'shit'? Well, too many on /. say different from a VERY PARTIAL LIST only (& I can produce many MANY more like these) https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11420419&cid=55704671/ & I never said it cured all (nothing does - just that hosts do MORE for FAR LESS overall vs. anything else, natively) + I created it myself (did Khyber create a router or modem himself? Hell no)... apk
Fuck you, I would if I could.
Can somebody confirm or deny: Intel's built in spy/nanny system - all that keeps the free world safe from terrusts and peejafiddlers and cormanausts - is cribbed from a classroom exercise that became a joke that got out of hand before they could stop it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Do 99% of the users not want their CPU to boot?
The management engine does more than just remote management. It manages the entire system. from first boot process to power management.
Because Intel ME allows a comp to be hijacked without defense and with no trace, all accusations of piracy are now suspect.
That's what I was thinking. EFF and others would support it. Tanenbaum doesn't seem to be interested, unfortunately. The copyright is actually held by the university. Possibly someone else at the university would be interested.
Where's your lawsuit threat jailbird homo Alex McQuown https://www.findmugshots.com/arrests/alex_marshall_mcquown_id_2334096.html/ the psycho loon that threatens DA's & gets busted? It's not you 110 lb. whimp I could snap in 1/2 with ease!
* Stupid - DID YOU COME UP WITH A WAY TO STALL THE INTEL AMT/ME ISSUE? No, you didn't you sick little HOMO BITCH, hahahahaha! Shitstains? Bitch, you get it up the ass TOO MUCH & can't hold your shit - lol, sleep on your stomach so you can keep doing it & NOT STAIN YOUR SHEETS weirdo!
(Vacation? I could see a TWISTED little fag like YOU calling one of your many JAIL STAYS a vacation (as you LOVE getting "your shit pushed in" no doubt - RoTfLmAo!)).
APK
P.S.=> You're a stupid little whacko stalker & a GENETIC ABERRATION faggot (abnormal freak, lol)... apk
He told me he's part of a minerological society? SanQuentin rockpile work in prison != minerological surveys & he FLIIPPED OUT after I said that + exposed he's one sick little twisted weirdo & recidivistic JAILBIRD (druggie too from what I heard of him, bigtime) AND then out of impotent LIMP WHIMP "HoMo RaGe", lol, he threatened me with a lawsuit (which in and of itself not following thru is grounds for me to sue him easily) that he can't even start since what I say of his jailtime is no lie & he knows it, lol!
... & no lie about his "HomoThatLikesGettingERECTUS" (ugh, lol) mental issues either!
Believe me - Khyber/Alex McQuown's (raging flaming homo druggie jailbird freak) a severely twisted demented weirdo genetic aberration that's unnatural, and WORSE than ANY WOMAN I've ever met (he stalks me constantly because his "gay pride" is injured, lol - the little do nothing KNOWS he's a twisted reject and that's why it all gets to him so badly).
APK
P.S.=> Slashdot's had its share of REAL weirdos but I have to admit that "Khyber" (Alex McQuown behind his FAKE NAME for his FAKE LIE OF A so-called "life") is the worst + most reprehensible of all of them I've seen - you point out a particularly TWISTED thing his sick ass does (disgusting)... apk
copyright laws are for people to obey, not for corporations.
copyright laws are for corporations to wield, not for people.
"I've been saying use a router FOR YEARS ON THIS SITE, since it was revealed that the OS and some programs bypass HOSTs AT WILL, oh but suddenly you won't go back and post any of those links to the arguments, because that would MAKE YOU WRONG AND A LIAR" - by Khyber ( 864651 ) on Sunday December 10, 2017 @05:31PM (#55712583) Homepage
Let's go @ this based on that quote of you so I can annihilate you: Windows bypasses hosts for Windows update Even "TheGarbz" says that https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9452517&cid=52602309/ you whacko AIDS dementia riddled DELUDED Homo loon!
IF a browser "bypasses hosts" then it is DESIGNED EXTREMELY POORLY as tcpip.sys works faster & IS THE MAJOR RESOLVER IN THE IP STACK stupid - doing it twice would be EXTREMELY FUCKING STUPID!
APK
P.S.=> Lastly on routers: I can produce PROOF (solid UNDENIABLE PROOF I was even PAID on in security guides I did a decade++ ago) that I was suggesting using routers (& PORT FILTERING)... apk
"suddenly you won't go back and post any of those links to the arguments, because that would MAKE YOU WRONG AND A LIAR" - by Khyber ( 864651 ) on Sunday December 10, 2017 @05:31PM (#55712583)
Why'd you run CLAIMING you created your very own network communication protocol & I ask you prove it https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10245269&cid=53880349/ ?
* WHO'S THE LIAR HOMO FREAK?? YOU ARE!
APK
P.S.=> You dirty little fucking faggot game playing little BITCH (think I don't KNOW it was you that started this crap too LYING that "a friend told you I was discussing you" you little TWAT ANUS genetic aberration cocksucking ass fucking FREAK? Bitch, you play BITCH GAMES - not w/ me freak. You can't get away with it (I've got DOZENS LIKE THIS bookmarked on your LYING ASS homo liar))... apk
Intel is putting 6.4 TONS EACH YEAR of fluoride compounds into the air around its plant!
Look Ma! No cavities!
Do 99% of the users not want their CPU to boot? The management engine does more than just remote management. It manages the entire system. from first boot process to power management.
I want my CPU to boot without security vulnerabilities. Minimizing the attack surface is in Computer Security 101.