Intel to Build Encryption Capabilities in Chips 44
Will Johnston sent us
a link to a CNNfn article where you can read about Intel's
plan's to incorporate encryption into
it's microchips. I'm not sure about this one: The paranoid
in me starts quivering, but then again, standard encryption
sure would make a lot of this stuff a lot easier. What
do you think?
Hell no (Score:1)
No thanks. Gimme gnupg any day...
--
More info (Score:1)
This actually makes me feel marginally better. RSA is sometimes fairly good about publicizing their algorithms. They are a pretty reasonable player in the encryption marketplace.
Bad idea--what happens if the code is broken (Score:1)
Smay! (Score:1)
Yuggek muh duhdordik, cnuup buhyoyay hmerp. Gwee, fubbub spinkmadoodink -- qwrrr xoxop. Splunggi jojingloo meezoom:
?) thukthukthuk
#) krebbler gnay "inihimijimipibi"
- Bonk
weak by default (Score:1)
Neat idea, except ... (Score:1)
also, if after a few years, the algorithm becomes cheap to brute force, you'll be required to upgrade.
so, in summary: encryption in the chip? feh! chips are fast enough today to handle software encryption. it tends to be more flexible as well.
According to Headline News (Score:1)
No thanks.
----
Now encryption (Score:1)
EASIER != SECURE (Score:1)
I still use PGP v2.06 because I know 5.0 has the govt. backdoor built in that Zimmerman had to give to the feds if he was going to be allowed to sell it...although this GNUgp sounds promising..
No way (Score:1)
Betcha there's a hidden Clipper agenda here (Score:1)
www.gnupg.org. So if everyone gets hooked on hardware encryption it's one step closer on the slippery slope to 'clipper' type key escroe our friends at the NSA have been pushing all decade.
I won't be buying into that garbage, nor would I trust Intel or any other huge corporation with my privacy.
Not necessarily an algorithm (Score:1)
Most likely, they will be introducing new instructions to make implementation of encryption simpler/faster.
Of course, that's just what we need. More instructions. Instructions are to processors as features are to software. Selling points, branding, market differentiators. Usually unnecessary.
Kinda makes me nostalgic for the whole RISC vs. CISC debate. We need a whooooole new category for these beasts.
x86 + MMX + Katmai + DES = SCISC (super-complex instruction set computer)?
Or is it VCISC?
Mostly random # gen (Score:1)
No, we need software encryption! (Score:1)
Software encryption is the only way to go, since it takes away the power from other entities.
Imagine if the OS were built into ROM, and you couldn't run anything but the Operating System that comes with the computer..
If you have a compiler and open source, you never need to worry about back doors in a particular encryption algorithm.
The Oregonian... (Score:1)
My $0.0000000002 anyway.
It's product-registration encryption (Score:1)
--
old news! (Score:1)
Unique CPU IDs are lovely, because it means Intel can have a database of what speed rating they sold each CPU at and you immediately get rid of people relabelling CPUs (since the buyer just checks with Intel what their CPUID was speed-rated at) without having to kill off the overclockers (who check what their CPUID was speed-rated at, then ignore that).
Hardware RNG is good because it removes a very hard-to-analyse source of possible insecurities (which Netscape ran into a few years back) from your crypto algorithms.
piracy (Score:1)
not that I care much anyway, this would apply to proprietary s/w, which I don't depend on.
I'm not too worried! (Score:1)
Encrypt? Nah... (Score:1)
However, my argrument with this is that speed will suffer. Intel processors use CISC technology, 1 instruction per cycle. Adding encryption routines would send the processor though the backlogs of hell.
If Intel was to do encryption, they would have to switch to a RISC system, and then the problem is possibly going to turn into the Y2k problem. Chips that use the same base code, including the encryption routines, and then someday, some major worm comes along and kills the encrypt, and shuts down the processors of the world.
IMHO: Hell no.