As zdnet is going to edit my responce to their article, and I'd like to hear some comments (maybe;) I thought I'd post it here as well...
The implications of this action go far beyond what was stated in this article. Chip-based ID numbers give few benefits and alot of responsibility given to those who have proven themselves otherwise time and time again.
Tying commercial ID to a piece of hardware, especially a piece of hardware replaced as often as a CPU is ludicrous! What if I upgrade? What if I have more than one computer? What if I'm at a public terminal, or a friends computer? What if my computer gets stolen? Will someone be able to transfer funds from my accounts because they stole my laptop? What if someone breaks into my computer and sends death-threats in my name? A piece of code I can carry on a disk (or beter yet, in my memory) is far more portable and universal as a personal ID.
Second, if Intel is so worried about overclocking fraud, why not just encode into the chip what speed THEY sold it as, and release the code required to query the chip. If someone thinks they got burned on an overclocked chip, give them the tools to take their grievance to the BBB, the Police, or a pair of hired thugs if you're so inclined. As to theft, don't CPU's have Serial Numbers already? This won't make fraud and theft go away, it'll just make it more difficult to detect.
It also seems to me that a persons ID could easily be stolen. Just write a daemon to watch for the incoming CPU ID query, intercept it, and reply with a packet you stole from a remote system by sending it a query packet. The only alternitive is to have the CPU compare every bit of data that goes through it with what a query packet looks like, which seems to be quite a waste of valuable CPU space & time.
Incidently, the patch that intel offers seems more like placing a piece of tape over the bar code, rather than removing it. Can the CPU be un-patched?
Anonymous speach is extremly important in any society that claims to be free. Sometimes a responsible citizen is forced by honor to break the law. What of the political dissident who wishes to speak out, but can't because any message they send will cause them do dissapear?
A section of the chip capable of generating random numbers (utilizing quantum effects) would be extremly handy....In fact, I think it's the only good idea in this entire proposal.
This "revolutionary" (or is it counter-revolutionary) double-edged sword is very dull on the side I'd want to use, and I could shave with the other.
Slashdot Mirror
I stand corrected again....techweb has an article on it....it's going to be a standard feature on the Pentium III's (and the associated celerons).
0 17
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990120S0
As zdnet is going to edit my responce to their article, and I'd like to hear some comments (maybe ;) I thought I'd post it here as well...
The implications of this action go far beyond what was stated in this article. Chip-based ID numbers give few benefits and alot of responsibility given to those who have proven themselves otherwise time and time again.
Tying commercial ID to a piece of hardware, especially a piece of hardware replaced as often as a CPU is ludicrous! What if I upgrade? What if I have more than one computer? What if I'm at a public terminal, or a friends computer? What if my computer gets stolen? Will someone be able to transfer funds from my accounts because they stole my laptop? What if someone breaks into my computer and sends death-threats in my name? A piece of code I can carry on a disk (or beter yet, in my memory) is far more portable and universal as a personal ID.
Second, if Intel is so worried about overclocking fraud, why not just encode into the chip what speed THEY sold it as, and release the code required to query the chip. If someone thinks they got burned on an overclocked chip, give them the tools to take their grievance to the BBB, the Police, or a pair of hired thugs if you're so inclined. As to theft, don't CPU's have Serial Numbers already? This won't make fraud and theft go away, it'll just make it more difficult to detect.
It also seems to me that a persons ID could easily be stolen. Just write a daemon to watch for the incoming CPU ID query, intercept it, and reply with a packet you stole from a remote system by sending it a query packet. The only alternitive is to have the CPU compare every bit of data that goes through it with what a query packet looks like, which seems to be quite a waste of valuable CPU space & time.
Incidently, the patch that intel offers seems more like placing a piece of tape over the bar code, rather than removing it. Can the CPU be un-patched?
Anonymous speach is extremly important in any society that claims to be free. Sometimes a responsible citizen is forced by honor to break the law. What of the political dissident who wishes to speak out, but can't because any message they send will cause them do dissapear?
A section of the chip capable of generating random numbers (utilizing quantum effects) would be extremly handy....In fact, I think it's the only good idea in this entire proposal.
This "revolutionary" (or is it counter-revolutionary) double-edged sword is very dull on the side I'd want to use, and I could shave with the other.