[7to2]

Exactly. Even if we assumed for the sake of argument that wifi cards have complete access to the system, that in and of itself does not excuse CPU vendors to broaden the attack surface and prevent owners from narrowing it back down.

I can't wait for riscv systems to take off. Hopefully we'll get more than the two horrible choices we have now and, hopefully, they won't be able to abuse the market in the same way.

Screw both intel and amd for deliberately putting us all at risk.

[anonym29]

>Screw both intel and amd for deliberately putting us all at risk.

Keep in mind, if these are government backdoors, it's likely Intel and AMD were compelled to put them in, there's a gag order on the existence of the program, and there's a gag order on the first gag order. It could be a situation where Intel and AMD really had their hands tied, so to speak.

[7to2]

That's why I'm rooting for riskv processors, so that we can get the equivalent of reproducible openSSL binaries. US chips that are found to be irreproducable can be rightfully ignored.

[charcircuit]

What's special about RISC-V? How does companies not having to pay for using an ISA in a processor having anything to do with whether they implement other processors inside of their processor?

[anonym29]

It's not that RISC-V guarantees truly transparent firmware and microcode; as you correctly point out, it does not.

What RISC-V offers is the possibility of truly transparent firmware and microcode. This comes as a refreshing alternative to x86, which guarantees that firmware and microcode, including those of security coprocessors (e.g. Intel CSME & AMD ST, formerly ME and PSP) will not be transparent.

[snvzz]

Being compatible with the standard ISA is itself a benefit.