Is it true that every Intel CPU has a backdoor built in?

Yes

Source: I work at NSA

File: amada92.png (942KB, 975x1029px) Image search: [Google]

942KB, 975x1029px

>>56215873
Yes, it's true anon. Buy AMD, they respect your freedoms.

Potentially yes. In reality only a a portion of the processors out are known to have a "backdoor" in them. Since Sandy Bridge every CPU that supports vPro has a kind of hardware level backdoor that is supposed to be used by businesses to remotely manage computers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Active_Management_Technology

File: 1469200501427.png (362KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 700x700px

How could you even write malicious code to a CPU? Wouldn't that require it having its own OS?

The only thing I can think of is sending it a specific call that causes it to execute some baked-in code, but then that will be very OS and hardware specific and would fail if you're using Linux or any OS released after the CPU

every CPU since the core 2 duo, yes.

File: battlestation.jpg (1MB, 2559x1574px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2559x1574px

>>56216150
Intel CPU's require some kind of microcode to be in the kernel in order to boot Linux, which might be how the management engine works, if you remove this then the OS simply won't boot. I'm not sure if AMD CPU's act the same way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Active_Management_Technology#Design

Oh yeah. AMD too. If it can handle 64-bit it's backdoored.

Intel backdoored since June 2006, AMD since 2013

https://libreboot.org/faq/#intel

>>56217794
Wow, who thought have a co-processor with direct access to the CPU and RAM should be directly hooked up to the ethernet adapter?

I mean, obviously the NSA, but why wasn't more of a fuss made about this when it came out?

>>56215873

there are lots of backdoors built in

Escaping the botnet is such a pain.

Everything is backdoored. You shouldn't store anything sensitive on a machine with internet connection anyway.
Also neptunia are shit games.

I was thinking this when I was on TAILS website and they were specific about only using x86 systems with it. Maybe it is my paranoia but I'm starting to think there is a reason why a privacy company would direct everyone to use an x86 system. It makes some sense if you think about it. If you use TAILS it would be known you are using TAILS just by your traffic. And if they know you are using TAILS they would definitely also know that you are using an x86 system. Meaning half of the information they would need about you and your system are already known by default the second you use it.

>>56218335
>he hasnt bought all of the dlc
its only 50 dollaroos goyim

>>56218380
>anyone using tails

kek

>>56218481
hey there are still a lot of professionals that use it. looking at all the alternatives there is nothing available that works otb like TAILS. It doesn't concern security professionals because they will just use an offline system and move data on usb. But reporters are the ones that would get screwed.

>>56216079
>Potentially yes. In reality only a a portion of the processors out are known to have a "backdoor" in them. Since Sandy Bridge every CPU that supports vPro has a kind of hardware level backdoor that is supposed to be used by businesses to remotely manage computers.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Active_Management_Technology

Explain this shit more please?
I built a new computer not too long ago, first new computer since '08. Its running linux and was in full shut down, and when I woke up the next morning I saw the network led blinking like a mad cunt. kinda spoopy.

is it a remote backdoor? if so is it some kind of frequency device? if it somehow can use the OS, then thatd be very complicated and probably
could be picked up, or ineffective due to weird OS or updated kernel api or something. ive seen local escalation exploits in intel that can give
you root/admin due to errors in the cpu, maybe thats what they refer to it as.

Yes.

RISC-V is the future

>>56218380
IIRC, the information sent to the website comes from your browser. There are browser plugins that allow you to essentially fake what operating system/architecture you're using.

So I could be on linux using firefox but my plugin sends the information saying that I am using windows with chrome.

>>56219592
You might want to get rid of your trip code when you say some shit like that.

>>56219592
filtered

>>56215873
Intel and AMD
AMT and DASH respectively

>>56219742
Font rendering, and picture decodes give away your OS.
Also like 100 other variables.

>>56215873
Possibly, nobody knows.

It frankly seems unnecessary, though.

File: literally_satan.jpg (242KB, 490x451px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 490x451px

>>56221290
yes

>>56222765
nope, it's necessary in case someone installs an operating system that isn't backdoored yet

>>56215873
Man, learn how CPUs are made. They make a big circle of circuits and then they do "magic", to cut the story. After "magic" the best CPUs are near the center of circle and as you go furthur they get worse. So all CPUs have same units only in some CPUs you lock some units because they didnt get made. So for example when Intel makes theirs CPUs they all have architecture like i7 but i7s are in center, and when you go further you get i5s and at the edge you get i3s :)

I mean if you're on the internet you're already being tracked. What's the issue here? Is is the CPU being accessed and sending data while your PC is off? Couldn't you just unplug the power or ethernet cable if that's the case? I frankly don't understand.