Friendly reminder that there's no escaping the botnet
>tfw Libreboot X220 with FSF approved GNU/Linux distribution
suck it NSA
>>59485898
>t. CIA nigger
I was on the fence about installing Coreboot/Libreboot but I'm definitely doing it now.
>>59485920
>intel
>hardware backdoors
your precious libreboot won't even protect you
>>59485951
You have no idea what you're talking about.
>>59485951
>>hardware backdoors
Proof? Last I heard, using Coreboot/Libreboot removes the only potential "backdoor" that is AMT/ME.
>>59485980
and what if there's something that's embedded even deeper?
>>59486000
I'll accept any form of proof on your part, otherwise, conjecture.
>>59485898
>being scared of the botnet
Nice mental illness
>>59486011
it's not exactly out of the realms of possibility is it?
>>59486000
>something that's embedded even deeper?
If it doesn't show up in my PCI devices in the OS, I don't give a fuck. Learn how computers work or go to /x/. We're already at maximum tard capacity. Goddamn pool's closed.
>>59485898
>>59486054
>sperging out this hard
typical freetard
>>59486033
No. That doesn't mean they exist, however. With all the bombshell leaks to have come out by Snowden and Wikileaks (CIA), there hasn't been one that mentions hardware backdoors been taken advantage of, and if they existed, you would be certain it would be front page news. Instead, we see these agencies buy up and exploit existing flaws in software instead. Why? Why do this if there's a universal backdoor? Isn't that the cheaper, fool-proof option?
>>59486023
Hello NSA!
>>59486090
>something must exist because there's a 0.000000000000001% that it's possible
>hurr durr u sperg
Pick up your spaghetti, put it back in your pocket, and fuck right off.
>>59485898
>AOL
>data collection started in 2011
You have nothing to worry about, they're retarded
>>59485920
>connects it to the internet
check mate.
literally only way is Temple OS with Terry's and God's blessings.
>>59485951
Hardware still needs firmware to phone home. Coreboot and me cleaner rectify that
>>59485951
>I have no idea what I'm talking about: the post