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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
>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.