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

AMD silently removes memory encryption from consumer Ryzen CPUs

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 225 posts

Re: AMD silently removes memory encryption from consumer Ryzen CPUs

#211

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #142
nemomarx wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You shouldn't be remotely disabling hardware features in my opinion at all. It's not really like changing an API or something, this is like an update removing something from your car or another appliance years after you bought it.

> You shouldn't be remotely disabling hardware features I don't know what current case law is but I think that ought to be explicitly illegal. A physical product should be required to maintain the features that it had when it was purchased. Anything else is clearly cheating the consumer.

Arguably it's a CFAA violation, but that's not a law that will ever be used against a company.

Re: AMD silently removes memory encryption from consumer Ryzen CPUs

#212

Post by IIsi50MHz »

cwillu wrote: post #58
russelg wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ever had to use an iPhone that would just shut off randomly with like 30% battery "remaining", you'd probably be singing a different tune and appreciative your device became somewhat more usable with the changes.

I'd expect the battery charge estimation to be recalibrated to account for the reduced capacity, not the hardware being deliberately hobbled to hide it.

Aging or damaged batteries can have dramatic'ly different output curves than the system expects. What looks like x% to the system can be at the edge of a cliff on the curve, causing sudden shutdowns or power loss.

Re: AMD silently removes memory encryption from consumer Ryzen CPUs

#213

Post by waterTanuki »

> After some more back-and-forth, Kilpatrick asked bluntly whether the flag being set to FALSE on consumer chips was a silicon-level limitation or a firmware policy decision — since one is permanent and the other is potentially reversible. Limonciello’s reply effectively closed the chapter. “My apologies, but I don’t have any more information to share on this topic,” he wrote.

Too many people downplaying this as a simple business decision from AMDs side but the response here is what really makes this a story.

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

Re: AMD silently removes memory encryption from consumer Ryzen CPUs

#214

Post by akimbostrawman »

15155 wrote: post #189
akimbostrawman wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Memory encryption can help mitigate much lower level attacks such as row hammer, these attacks get patched even average consumer devices. No benefit for 99%? people said the same about FDE. Just as there is not a good enough excuse to not validate integrity and availability of data, it is not for confidentiality when its very much technically possible to do so.

So can scrambling - which is not encryption.

Great, so they just need to create and maintain a completely different method just for consumer instead of the already existing prosumer encryption without the added benefit of security and most likely even performance reduction because encryption has hardware acceleration.

Re: AMD silently removes memory encryption from consumer Ryzen CPUs

#215

Post by [deleted] »

akimbostrawman wrote: post #214
15155 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So can scrambling - which is not encryption.

Great, so they just need to create and maintain a completely different method just for consumer instead of the already existing prosumer encryption without the added benefit of security and most likely even performance reduction because encryption has hardware acceleration.

[deleted]

Re: AMD silently removes memory encryption from consumer Ryzen CPUs

#217

Post by loloquwowndueo »

iknowstuff wrote: post #193
loloquwowndueo wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of subscription heated seats in bmw cars. The hardware is already there, you paid for it and you can’t use it unless you give the automaker a revenue stream on top of the tens of thousands you already paid for the car.

Well you didn’t pay for it though did you. The subscription is foul but the manufacturer choosing to streamline manufacturing by only having one variant restricted with software if you don’t pay is not particularly bad or surprising. Plus, easy to hack it back in, so win win

Two things. First - I already paid a hefty sum for a luxury car, why do I have to pay extra for a functionality a fucking $20k kia has standard.

Second, your argument kind of holds if it’s a one-time unlock fee, but falls apart under the subscription model. That’s a total revenue stream cash grab.

Re: AMD silently removes memory encryption from consumer Ryzen CPUs

#218

Post by loloquwowndueo »

kevincox wrote: post #209
port11 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a bit of double dipping then: the streamlined production makes the seat cheaper, and people who subscribe further increase the margin on the heated seat. I really don’t understand the subscription model applied to a physical piece of equipment that has no digital maintenance overhead.

But the streamlined manufacturing is still more expensive than no heated seats. So someone needs to pay for it. There are two reasonable options 1. charge everyone a bit more by including it as a standard feature 2. charge only some people significantly more so that only the people who find heated seats worth it pay the cost. It isn't double dipping, in no scenario does it make sense to physically make two models, it…

A one-time unlock fee = sleazy but ok

A subscription fee = Drake no, that’s totally ridiculous and unholy.

I don’t know what the fee is but it’s have to be lower when aggregated over the car’s lifetime than what the one-time unlock would cost to make sense - and I’m fairly sure it’s not lower.

Re: AMD silently removes memory encryption from consumer Ryzen CPUs

#219

Post by port11 »

kevincox wrote: post #209
port11 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a bit of double dipping then: the streamlined production makes the seat cheaper, and people who subscribe further increase the margin on the heated seat. I really don’t understand the subscription model applied to a physical piece of equipment that has no digital maintenance overhead.

But the streamlined manufacturing is still more expensive than no heated seats. So someone needs to pay for it. There are two reasonable options 1. charge everyone a bit more by including it as a standard feature 2. charge only some people significantly more so that only the people who find heated seats worth it pay the cost. It isn't double dipping, in no scenario does it make sense to physically make two models, it…

I’m not a free market advocate, but… if you want a heated seat, you pay the extra for producing it specifically for that purpose, no? Otherwise the non-subscribers are ‘subsidising’ the cost of the special seat.

Re: AMD silently removes memory encryption from consumer Ryzen CPUs

#220

Post by loloquwowndueo »

iririririr wrote: post #191
blacklion wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same with some old IBM hardware: two CPUs were installed in each box, but if you bought only 1 CPU server other one is disabled via firmware.

intel/amd does that and nobody calls them out. ibm at least is upfront and less poluting as you can use the same device. Intel, after they burn the fuses, that cpu will always be an i3.

Not the same thing. The equivalent is: buy an i5 but unless you pay a monthly fee, it only runs at an i3 speed.
Post reply on HN