CircleSpokes

I think that would make sense yes. It isn't clear to me why they would distribute the private keys to the OEMs (laziness?).

Intel gave it to MSI, but I may have been incorrect before. Apparently the keys was shared across multiple OEMs (at least that is how I read this below)

>The leaked private keys affect Intel’s 11th, 12th, and 13th generation processors and were distributed to various OEMs, including Intel itself, Lenovo, and Supermicro.

I can't take people like you seriously. The anticheat isn't a backdoor. It doesn't ship with the operating system or come preinstalled in anyway. You opt into it when you play the game. Literally nothing is forcing you to use it or have it installed on your computer.

I understand this is the internet and being super dramatic is part of it but can we please be for real for one moment?

>People don’t care about the anticheat on their computer, they want it foisted on everyone else who plays, which is a sucky proposition for privacy and security minded people.

No they want games without hackers. Which kernel based anticheats helps with. Can it also impact privacy and security? Yes no doubt but so can any program running on the computer even in userspace. Remember we are talking about kernel anticheats on windows lol.

If you are really worried about it you could dual boot like many people. Either way this whole argument seems silly to me.

I don't think its absurd at all. It isn't required in anyway (opt in), lets you use your own keys (no preinstalled microsoft or other bigcorp keys), and isn't possible for someone to modify what keys you installed.

Of course if you lose your keys you can't sign anything else and that would make it basically ewaste, but most things end up as waste when you take actions that are reckless and can't be reversed (which is what losing the keys would be). Plus tech tends to ends up as ewaste after less than a decade anyways. Like sure you could still be using an AMD steamroller CPU but realistically after 10 years you'd be better off using a cheaper more power efficient chip anyways.

You are correct. Secure boot is not required to play valorant on windows 10.

Anyone saying secureboot "brings absolutely nothing" clearly doesn't understand how secure boot works (or is just arguing in bad faith). Secure boot has issues (see key revocation issue & vulnerable UEFI program used by malware to install bootkit) but it does address a real security issue.

People might not like who holds the commonly preinstalled keys (Microsoft and motherboard OEMs) but even then you can add your own keys and sign your own images if you want (there was just a post yesterday about doing this for raspberry pis),

I honestly don't understand why people act like this. Wanting to be able to ensure firmware isn't maliciously modified is a good thing. Open firmware is also a good idea obviously but there has to be a way to ensure firmware is signed either by OEM or your own keys like secure boot.

As for games, lots of people play games and want good anticheat. If you don't like that you don't have to play those games but no need to act like the way you are because other people want decent anticheat.

The keys are OEM specific. Intel gives them to MSI so they can sign their firmware/BIOS updates. Clearly MSI didn't handle them well.

Except you can use your own keys? Nothing stops you from signing the stuff yourself (other comments in this thread link to a step by step guide!)

Not only do they hide it under a group policy even when you enable an "Enhanced PIN" there is a maximum length of 20.

It can work yes but AMD chips didn't get GMET until Zen2 so if you leave virtualization based protection on you might see a performance hit.

From Microsoft's website:

>Memory integrity works better with Intel Kabylake and higher processors with Mode-Based Execution Control, and AMD Zen 2 and higher processors with Guest Mode Execute Trap capabilities. Older processors rely on an emulation of these features, called Restricted User Mode, and will have a bigger impact on performance.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/threat-pr...

IIRC it has more to do with that series of chip not having GMET (AMD Guest-Mode Execute Trap for NPT) which is used in Windows 10/11s virtualization based protection. Microsoft requires this option for all new PCs from their partners but you can install windows 11 and run it fine without this CPU feature (there is a performance hit if you leave virtualization based protection on though since it has to be done in software).

>Berkeley attempted this and it was recently overturned: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/court-overturns-berkeley-califo...

There is a legal difference between a state banning it and a city. States have far more powers that cities don't (unless the state delegates that power which they often do)

> If people are not allowed to transfer money anonymously, why allow them communicate anonymously?

You can do that in the US though with cash. There might be some transactions that you can't do in physical cash but that is more of a practical/convince limitation and not a legal one.

Acting on behalf of adversarial governments is fine too if you register with the government. In the case linked above they didn't do that and conspired to keep the fact they took orders from Moscow hidden.

Except people get arrested for sanction busting somewhat frequently..

>Oh, so your advice is to blindly trust whatever they shovel into the public's mouths ?

Are you being serious? By this time in history Libya had already established a history for terror attacks and targeting civilians. So yeah I wouldn't have any issue believing it.

Just like when the UK blamed Russia for poising people Salisbury with chemical weapons. I believed them because they had intelligence about it & Russia has a history with this type of attack. Just like Libya already had a proven history of terror attacks in the 80s.

It is beyond silly to think a false flag bombing (injuring 250+ friendly nationals) is more likely than LIBYA, a know rouge state and user of terrorism, bombing a civilian dance club.

You and others are more than happy to bury your heads in the sand and pretend like the world is a TV show where countries post all their intelligence to twitter or in the paper lol.

Because real life isn't a TV show. That isn't how national security agencies work. They don't dump raw intelligence to the public. The US knew it was Libya obviously, and the data released since then has proved that. Hell even the Stasi & the soviets knew it was Libya.

Again this isn't a TV show. No country needs permission to react to an attack against them by another state like Libya.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Do you think the Libyan intelligence service gets to bomb dance clubs and then cry sovereignty when someone bombs some military targets in Libya? I don't know if you are ignorant of the situation or if you truly believe a country cannot retaliate against an attack against their citizens and allies. (This story and the bombing campaigned being photographed by the SR71 was a direct response to the West Berlin discotheque bombing in 1986).

>The entire world is truly their own backyard!

Yes..? If you are a state actor like Libya and you attack other nations civilians to cause terror then they have the right to attack you back. The US bombing Gaddafi's compounds and some other military targets in Libya was 100% justified. To act like a country can't retaliate in such a situation is honestly childish.

Now I know you are trolling.

Employees forming a union isn't 'parasitizing' an existing one. It is clear you don't even understand the basics of what a union is or how it works. It is for the best if ignorant people like stop acting like you know what you are talking about instead of posting brain dead takes on the internet.

Nothing about forming a union is tone deaf. One doesn't have to be 'oppressed' to form a union. This isn't mocking anything.

Forming a union isn't entitled. Nothing is wrong with forming and joining a union. Your post is frankly ridiculous.

No it wouldn't. Basically all mobile networks would break and have to do even more layers of NAT to meet demand.

> IPv6 does not do anything to save the planet.

The world doesn't have enough IPV4 addresses. It literally solves the problem. It is crazy to me so many people here are arguing for multileveled NAT instead of the obvious solution we have had for 20 years.

>In IPv4 NAT is used to make sure your laptop isn't exposed to random script kiddies trying to scan for vulnerable services behind your router. A fun exercise is to plug a RaspberryPi up directly to a public facing IP address and log every packet it receives. Then give those scripts a few services to detect (HTTP server, SSH server, etc.) and look at how the traffic shifts from scanning for ports to scanning for vulnerabilities. Being connected directly to the public internet is a real eye opening experience.

That isn't really feasible with IPV6 though is it? The smallest IPV6 subnet is 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses, so even if you setup a Pi fully open to the world with default passwords the chance of someone scanning it is basically zero. That type of scanning only works because the IPV4 range is so small (& you can efficiently ignore large parts of it like the US DOD space, private addresses, etc).

Taking away ownership isn't what this would do though? Honestly I don't even understand how you came to that conclusion.

That is the exact opposite off what it says. The US government has actually mandated IPV6 only networks in the next few years.

>At least 20% of IP-enabled assets on Federal networks are IPv6-only by the end of FY 2023;9 >b. At least 50% of IP-enabled assets on Federal networks are IPv6-only by the end of FY 2024; >c. At least 80% of IP-enabled assets on Federal networks are IPv6-only by the end of FY 2025

https://www.cio.gov/assets/resources/internet-protocol-versi...

Maybe I should have been more specific. In my mind there is a difference between stopping outgoing ddos attack and blocking/censoring websites.

The fact he didn't fight extradition from the Bahamas (which could have taken a very long time) helped his case a lot.

University isn't the same as grade school. It is absurd a public University would do any sort of filtering or censorship on their networks.