Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Freedom and security issues on x86 platforms

mail.fsfeurope.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 282 posts

Re: Freedom and security issues on x86 platforms

#261

Post by jensen123 »

616c wrote: post #94

The fight is increasingly political, so advocate and donate where you can. We lose when we give up, I suppose. I know what the Libreboot guy said before on his blog, alluded to here, but this is why, as crusty as some might find him, we most generally support Stallman's politics.

I wish the FSF was a bit more nuanced. For example, if DRM causes ordinary computers to come with proprietary code that is impossible to remove, then that is bad indeed. Then you no longer control your own computer. The same computer that you might use for political activities, for example.

On the other hand, if entertainment computers, such as blu-ray players or gaming consoles are locked-down and full of DRM, then I don't see a big problem. Sure, the government could potentially ban some movies in the future, and require the manufacturers to update the firmware on your machine so that it will no longer play those movies. But movies and games are expensive to produce, and without DRM most of them probably wouldn't get produced in the first place. In any case, movies and games aren't really that important, compared to say books and articles.

The FSF seems to be against DRM EVERYWHERE! They don't seem to realize that DRM might actually be a good thing for some things. Are there any organizations out there that I could donate to, that fight/work for open hardware for general purpose computers, without trying to prevent locked-down entertainment computers?

Re: Freedom and security issues on x86 platforms

#262

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

HappyTypist wrote: post #229
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds almost unbelievable, but it could happen. I mean, Apple, unlike every other computer company, has successfully transitioned processor architecture twice before (68k to PowerPC, PowerPC to Intel). They could pull the same tricks they pulled for PPC to have a smooth transition: x86 emulation on ARM, “Universal” (fat) binaries, and making it easy for developers to port their apps.

They don't need universal with the App Store. App Store submissions must be in bitcode, allowing Apple to recompile on their end

snuxoll says that's not the case: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11425761

Re: Freedom and security issues on x86 platforms

#263

Post by 4ad »

rsync wrote: post #236
Kadin wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the last generation of SPARC-based workstations in wide production were the Ultra 45s. They were made until 2008, according to Wikipedia [1]. They sell for surprisingly high prices [2], for an almost-decade-old computer, on eBay. You could probably get an old Apple PowerPC-based system for considerably less than that, and a LibreBoot-compatible x86 system for even less, but they do exist if you wanted to play…

Oh, so any sun sparc workstation of that era would work. Understood - thank you.

There is nothing open about Ultra 45 workstations in the context of this thread (it uses Open Firmware, but that's about it).

Note that Ultra 45 workstations are extremely slow, much slower than you expect. They were very slow even when they were new. Think Pentium 2 performance.

Re: Freedom and security issues on x86 platforms

#264

Post by revanx_ »

andrey_utkin wrote: post #146
em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm using ASUS C201 which uses ARM. It was a Chromebook, now running libreboot and parabola linux.

How is it regarding GPU driver (or what Mali is)? Are you running binary mali driver or FOSS lima?

There is no FOSS lima driver for Mali-T760. There was a lima dev working on it but cause of some e drama that went down the drain.

Re: Freedom and security issues on x86 platforms

#265

Post by revanx_ »

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #63
darpa_escapee wrote: post #8

ARM architectures also suffer from this. You'll be hard pressed to find a board that doesn't require a propriety board support package somewhere in the stack. Ironically, it is usually the bootloader that is/requires a blob or it is the DTB. I remember being in middle school and reading Stallman's articles on the dangers of a TPM-oriented push by manufacturers. As cliche as it is, Stallman was right. The push for pla…

I'm using ASUS C201 which uses ARM. It was a Chromebook, now running libreboot and parabola linux.

off topic: do you happen to have any issues with the usb ports on the right side of the case?

Re: Freedom and security issues on x86 platforms

#266

Post by revanx_ »

maaku wrote: post #7
mmastrac wrote: post #4

Given that chip development has been hitting diminishing returns for a few years it might be time for Open Source to eat the world of processors as well. It feels like the sort of opportune market that server operating systems, databases and web servers occupied: less of a visual aesthetic and more of a better-design-wins market. It's not going to be easy - I'd guess that it would take at least 10 years for a project…

People are working on that, and it might take less time than you think: http://riscv.org/

maybe some low performance RISCV SoCs will be available in a few years, but at least a decade for workstations socs.

Re: Freedom and security issues on x86 platforms

#267

Post by lazyjones »

Opterons from 2011-2012 are still available and seem to be the best option to me for this purpose. They're reasonably performant (16 cores...), affordable and there are plenty of mainboard options. Software support is excellent of course. I'm just not sure how valid the "pre-2013 AMD is safe" claim is, since vendors have been known to include some remote management technology like Intel's ME in earlier versions before making it a standard feature.

Re: Freedom and security issues on x86 platforms

#268

Post by analognoise »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #125
kristoffer wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that LEON is overlooked in the MCU market. Wrapping up one or multiple of the RISC-V cores in GRLIB is something I think would benefit both Gaisler and the RISC-V community and something I have thought of doing myself if I had the time!

That's about half the peer review I need on that given your background. Next I need a SPARC opponent with HW/SOC experience background giving same recommend haha. Might send it to some of the academics. Another part of my plan was to get academics to build and public domain the source/verilog/whatever so we can benefit from their cheap EDA licensing and shuttle runs. Pick bare minimum I.P. we need, like DDR or PCI, t…

Most academic shuttle runs are still at 90nm, or bigger. There are a few reasons for this: cost of runs, cost of tooling (hundreds of k), and the fact that your assumptions about transistor action and modeling are exponentially more complicated at advanced process nodes.

Academics also sign NDAs about the processes they use, and can only make certain things available; the most open is probably MOSIS, but that's absolutely no good for advanced nodes.

I'd say throw low power and advanced anything out the window, demonstrate a working chip, then look for funding to advance it.

Re: Freedom and security issues on x86 platforms

#269

Post by nickpsecurity »

analognoise wrote: post #268
nickpsecurity wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's about half the peer review I need on that given your background. Next I need a SPARC opponent with HW/SOC experience background giving same recommend haha. Might send it to some of the academics. Another part of my plan was to get academics to build and public domain the source/verilog/whatever so we can benefit from their cheap EDA licensing and shuttle runs. Pick bare minimum I.P. we need, like DDR or PCI, t…

Most academic shuttle runs are still at 90nm, or bigger. There are a few reasons for this: cost of runs, cost of tooling (hundreds of k), and the fact that your assumptions about transistor action and modeling are exponentially more complicated at advanced process nodes. Academics also sign NDAs about the processes they use, and can only make certain things available; the most open is probably MOSIS, but that's absol…

I'd agree that most runs are at 90nm or above. Yet, the rest is confusing given I have quite a few papers with competitive stuff done at 45-65nm with some at 28 or 32nm.

So, why you say forget about it or MOSIS below 90nm if academics are getting working chips done that low?

Re: Freedom and security issues on x86 platforms

#270

Post by nickpsecurity »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #230
Kadin wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many big players have vested interest in hardware platforms that are not tampered with out-of-the-box, or open to easy tampering, by their adversaries. The Chinese have an interest in having a hardware platform that doesn't have NSA code baked into it; the US government and major US corporations likewise want hardware that doesn't phone home to Unit 61398. The Russians don't want either but probably have their own am…

> Hardware fabrication is a capital intensive industry, and capital intensive industries are pretty vulnerable to coercion by the governments in which all their capital equipment sits. If the spec is open then it should be possible for a fancy lab to verify that the hardware is manufactured to spec, right? So if you have it manufactured in Taiwan but then have random samples verified by labs in the US, Japan and Euro…

Look up ChipWorks. They're Number 1 in doing this far as I know. Still potential to hide things or just make it goo expensive to find.
Post reply on HN