> CPU firmware is likely the worst type of compromise (see Intel ME).
I see it, and I see the AMD and ARM equivalents, and I'm sitting here wondering how the hell do I buy a decent laptop without that crippling trust hole. AFAICT, one cannot.
I'm willing to pay more for processors that aren't thus afflicted. Is anyone at AMD, Intel et al listening?
I believe so too. OpenPOWER and RISC-V show great promise but I am not aware of any significant tape-outs for either (and not to mention you have to have consumer motherboards et al that are compatible with the chipset).
The nice thing about OpenPOWER is that there are many distributions (openSUSE is one that I know for sure) that provide some support for ppc64le and thus the transition shouldn't be too painful from a port-the-distro perspective. RISC-V also will have similar support once it's merged into the mainline kernel and also once distributions have significant confidence to spin up some QEMU build images for RISC-V.
> I'm willing to pay more for processors that aren't thus afflicted. Is anyone at AMD, Intel et al listening?
I am inclined to believe that the reason is economic rather than them just being evil (that doesn't mean that it's not a horrible misfeature that mistreats users, I just don't think that the inclusion of ME on consumer hardware was an intentional decision). Intel ME is "required" for enterprises because sysadmins want to be able to control all of the machines they provide their employees (you can have varied opinions on whether that's ethically acceptable, but that's the reason).
Given that consumer hardware generally comes from the enterprise world after it has dropped in value, I would not be surprised if Intel ME was left in consumer CPUs simply because it was cheaper than removing it. There's also the (weaker) argument that an enterprise should be able to use Intel ME on a BYO-device system, but that strikes me as unethical.
You might be willing to pay extra for Intel ME-less CPUs, but have you seen what the bill is for a full tape-out? There needs to be significant market demand for something like that.
> but even a sysadmin at a fortune 500 company is in the dark about all that this second cpu can and can't do.
The sysadmin might not know how it works, but they do know they can control machines remotely using their Intel branded management system (or other rebranded variety). Just because they don't know how bad it is doesn't mean that's not the motivation for it.
IPMI is a similar deal. Modern servers have a secondary computer embedded in the motherboard (which have been historically _very_ insecure) because it's useful for managing servers. Intel AMT is the work-laptop version of that technology, and you can bet that most enterprises use it.
> if it was economical they would offer you to pay more for full control for it.
But they do. The entire reason why enterprise deployments of large numbers of work laptops/desktops is so expensive is because you have to pay extra for the management system that comes with it. Just because they don't remove the "backdoor" in their consumer lines doesn't mean they won't charge you through the nose to be able to administer the damn thing.
I am very anti-ME and wish that all firmware was free software, but arguing that the reason why ME is present in consumer CPUs is not for economic reasons doesn't sound right to me. The reason why the technology was developed is because the developers were not aware how unethical their actions were, and that's where the core of this problem lies.
I see it, and I see the AMD and ARM equivalents, and I'm sitting here wondering how the hell do I buy a decent laptop without that crippling trust hole. AFAICT, one cannot.
I'm willing to pay more for processors that aren't thus afflicted. Is anyone at AMD, Intel et al listening?