12 Feb
1999
12 Feb
'99
9:43 a.m.
The solution's simple . . . don't use an intel processor. Goodness knows
they're overpriced!
Has AMD started doing this?
Dick
----------
From: Joe <rigdonj(a)intellistar.net>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Subject: OT: Intel in hot water again, interesting
reading!
Date: Thursday, February 11, 1999 4:48 PM
FYI
>
> <http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/scoop-top.gif> The Scoop
> http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/blank.gif
><http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/blank.gif>
>http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/blank.gif
><http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/blank.gif>
>http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/blank.gif
><http://img.cmpnet.com/tw/newsletters/blank.gif>
>By Fred Langa
>By Fred Langa
>
>InformationWeek
>
>You probably saw the original coverage of Intel's announcement that it
would
>embed an individual serial number in each Pentium
III and Celeron chip.
The
>96-bit ID can identify the user's PC to any
software that knows how to
ask.
>
>Immediately after the announcement, various consumer watchdog groups
went
>ballistic. Epic, the Electronic Privacy
Information Center, launched a
>boycott of Intel, calling it the "Big Brother Inside" campaign. Epic
says
>the processor serial number, "would likely be
collected by many sites,
>indexed and accumulated in databases...The records of many different
>companies could be joined without the user's knowledge or consent to
provide
>an intrusive profile of activity on the
computer."
>
>Intel immediately backed off a bit by announcing that although the
serial
>number would ship enabled on every chip, Intel
would provide equipment
>manufacturers with a small software applet that could be used to prevent
>access to the number. However, the software must work (it hasn't been
tested
>yet); it must be properly installed on each PC;
and it must be run after
>every reboot.
>
>Epic says that because this approach "relies on a software patch that
must
>run each and every time that a user turns on the
computer, it is
susceptible
>to tampering by other software programs." So,
Epic's boycott is still in
>place: The group insists that Intel should disable the processor serial
>number at the hardware level, where it will stay disabled until the PC
owner
>turns it on.
>
>To further muddy the waters, the processor serial number may not be very
>secure. CMP Media's Electronic Engineering Times quoted cryptography
expert
>Bruce Schneier, who talked about the prospect that
the serial numbers
can be
>forged or stolen: "A system is only as secure
as the smartest hacker,"
he
>said. "All it takes is for one person to
defeat the tamper resistance.
>There's always someone who manages to unravel the protection. There
isn't a
>copy-protected piece of software that hasn't
been stripped of its
>protections and posted to hacker bulletin boards. This won't be any
>different." (For the full story, go to "Intel ID Protection Scheme
Called
>Insufficient.")
>
>Of course, there are legitimate and useful purposes for this kind of ID,
>especially for resource-tracking within an enterprise. Indeed, some
>workstation manufacturers already include similar functions on their
>enterprise-ready boxes, and some enterprise software products use these
>serial numbers for licensing. But Intel is attempting to broaden this
>practice to an unprecedented degree by putting the ID number on every
chip
>and enabling it by default. Toss in only weak
assurances of the serial
>number's security and only a weak turn-off option, and you're got a
>firestorm of protests.
>
>Last week, I conducted an informal online poll among the readers of
Windows
>Magazine. The reaction was eye-opening: Out of
hundreds of posts,
virtually
>all were vehemently anti-Intel. And in that huge
majority, most people
swore
>their next PC purchase would be AMD-based, until
and unless Intel either
>removes the processor serial number or allows it to be disabled in
hardware.
>One reader suggested the clever idea of
resurrecting the old "turbo"
switch
>approach and placing a simple serial number
enable/disable button on the
>front of every PC. (You can read more on the controversy and see reader
>reaction at Windows Magazine: Big Brother Inside?.)
>
>I was amazed at the absolute intensity of the reader posts. It's as
though
>the processor serial number was the last straw for
many people: Intel's
>history of high prices and other public relations fumbles (like the
>floating-point math bug) seem to have built up a huge reservoir of
>resentment that's now spilling over. I think we're seeing the start of a
>strong anti-Intel backlash, analogous to the anti-Microsoft fervor
that's
>changing the operating system landscape.
>
>Fred Langa is a senior consulting editor and columnist for Windows
Magazine.
>Fred's free weekly newsletter is available via
subscribe(a)langa.com
><mailto:subscribe@langa.com> . You can contact him at fred(a)langa.com
><mailto:fred@langa.com> or via his website at http://www.langa.com
><http://www.langa.com> . http://www.techweb.com/
<http://www.techweb.com/>
>