Some mobile PIIs have PIII-type IDs 104
dtor writes "P3 Id? Worry about the P2 Id.
According to this MSNBC article, some P2s ship with a P3-like unique ID enabled. Apparently, this was an mistake at the factory." Intel apparently was testing the process, used in the PIIIs on some of their PII mobile lines, and someone forgot to turn that circuit off before they left the factory. Intel is saying that a BIOS update is out that will take care of the problem - anyone have a link to that?
Who cares about ID's? (Score:1)
MSNBC and plugins (Score:1)
Intel (Score:1)
Sounds like the Tuskegee Study all over again if you ask me..
linuxonline.org [linuxonline.org]
Here's more (Score:1)
You have to "trick" Windows into crashing? I would've thought that was pretty much a voluntary thing on Windows' part :-)
linuxonline.org [linuxonline.org]
And just which CPU's are they? (Score:1)
Thank you MSN for a completely uninformative article. It would have been much appreciated it they had posted *which* CPU's were affected--PII-300? PII-233? PII-266? Families? Steppings? MFG dates? Identifying tattoos and scars?
If the news can provide a date and ID number for spoiled milk products, etc., why the H*LL can't they do the same for this?
Amateurs!!!
These are the CPU's (Score:1)
From C/NET (via www.x86.org) I found this: [news.com]
"Processor serial number prototypes were included on the 333-MHz and 366-MHz mobile
Pentium II processors with 256KB of integrated, secondary cache and the 266-MHz and
300-MHz mobile Celeron processors, according to an Intel spokesman. These chips
were all released January 25."
Looks like they hit a number of fab lines with this!
Who cares about ID's? (Score:1)
Of course it is an easy example to patch your operating system to return any hostid() you desire instead of the real hostid(). In fact, you may return different hostid()s to different processes. A driver which does this for Solaris has been made available for many years. Check the comp.sources archives on USENET for more information.
The moral of this story is: In a "piracy" environment, your software cannot trust any other software, the operating system or even itself to perform as exspected. Or shorter: You cannot win.
Clue for privacy advocates (Score:1)
So, don't come whining to me. Intel's IDs are no threat to the privacy of anyone with half a brain, whether they're in PIIs or PIIIs. Intel's not the problem, the problem is proprietary software (as usual). Just say NO!
MSNBC and plugins (Score:1)
But why on earth does every "big" website these days have a stupid plug-in to go along with it? MSNBC told me it's "only" a 20 minute download at 28.8.
The day Rob makes a Slashdot plug-in to download is the day I stop visiting slashdot.
Chip Fabrication Process, and deeper questions (Score:1)
I found another one! (Score:1)
Chip Fabrication Process (Score:1)
" We accidentally spilled some Pentium III seeds into the Pentium II chips! Ooops!"
Typical Windows User:
"Really Wow ! Can I have one?
Damn, if they do... (Score:1)
Damn, if they do... (Score:1)
Mobile PII? (Score:1)
Here's more (Score:1)
Intel P IIIs are NOT the only CPUs with IDs (Score:1)
AMD is reportedly considering it for the K7, but the K6, K6-2, K6-III, and all Cyrix chips do not have one as of yet.
Damn, if they do... (Score:1)
First off, Intel offered a DOS/Win software fix that was to allow you to turn it off (I think it ran in autoexec or something equivilent for NT or whatnot). This is get-around-able due to ActiveX and other wonderful Windows "features". The gist of at least one of these is that it reboots the system and somehow or other grabs the ID before the Intel patch can be run.
There is a Linux kernel patch to disable the ID, and to my knowledge it is not possible to re-enable the ID while running Linux while that patch is in place (other than recompile/reboot of course).
Some motherboard manufacturers offer the ability to turn it off in hardware, but I don't know if this is able to be changed or not (again likely through ActiveX exploits, etc).
Nice of them to let us know... (Score:1)
I suppose it it would be too much to ask for the favor of letting us know we were being tracked.
Here's more or less (Score:1)
Okay, I'll bite (Score:1)
MSNBC and plugins (Score:1)
Who cares about ID's? I DO!! (Score:1)
Who cares about ID's? I DO!! (Score:1)
A P-III-only world? (Score:1)
This will not work anyway. You're speaking about Oracle? For example, is Oracle only selling software for Pentium-IIIs? Are they even only selling software for x86s only? A company cannot restrict the use of its software to architectures that have IDs.
I consider this to be a Good Thing, and hope that nobody will start selling its software in "standard" and "P3 only" versions.
IDs in hardware devices (Score:1)
Excuse me if I am wrong, but isn't it possible to read the serial number of disk drives (and floppies for that mater) via software. Wouldn't this identify a particular machine just as well as a CPU ID?
Well, I don't have a disk drive connected to my x86 box. I don't think some company will be going to say that I will not be allowed to install their software on my box.
I think the point is that there's either a standardized ID mechanism for all users (which I don't think will ever happen) or no IDs at all.
I prefer the latter.
Okay, I'll bite (Score:1)
With no disk drive, where exactly were you going to install that software?
Sorry, Germanism, I think. For me, "disk drive" simply means "floppy disk drive".
mmh, even with winchester drives (hard drives?), it wouldn't make much sense. I'm backing up and restoring data far too often, and I really don't care on what disk the data goes if I write a partition back from the streamer (I have 6..8 IDE drives I swap quite often).
Upgrading IDs (Score:1)
And what happens if I upgrade my CPU?
Simple. A digit is appended to your previous ID.
Access Rules (Score:1)
Chip Fabrication Process (Score:1)
Time for this URL again (Score:1)
Freaky... (Score:1)
Damn, if they do... (Score:1)
AMD is reportedly considering it for the K7
What the hell are we nerds gonna do? I was really hoping to get a few K7's if they support SMP.
I heard some time ago about a patch to the kernel that stopped that whole piii serial number mess. The same thing could be done for any other chip, right?
No trick involved. (Score:1)
More crap from Wintel to make our lives easier.
Bah.
Just do not tell me that this is not intentional (Score:1)
Definitely on puprose and I do not believe all this bullshit about unintentional.
In btw: it was done in the same time while Microsoft did that illegal serial number collection. I wonder did they collect only ethernet addresses?
Another, less expensive link (Score:1)
Something not well known by worshipers of the ZD benchmarks is that the AMD main "flaw" - low FPU is meaningless for a Unix system. Actually, when running at the same MHz AMD is even faster then Intel under Linux if the hard disk subsystem is supported by the kernel.
Personally I prefer Alpha as well, but I cannot afford it
Intel must think that all consumers are morons!!! (Score:1)
"...But as when c't pointed out that the software utility could be bypassed, company spokesman George Alfs noted that all software can be hacked..."
"We would want to look at the code before we make a comment on that," Alfs said. "But the end user always needs to be aware of malicious software."
So then WHY THE FUCK DOES INTEL TRY TO CONVINCE THE CONSUMER THAT THEIR PATCH IS SECURE?
Now everyone knows that Intel cannot be trusted
farther than they can be kicked.
I think MS and Intel are trying to be the
Howard Stern of privacy invasions.... "yea
boys, let's just keep taking a little more
away from these dumb comsumers until, at last,
we have cameras in their living room..."
BOYCOTT sounds like a fitting word here!
Who cares about ID's? Seriously? (Score:1)
Still... On the server side, yes, it's "just an administrative hassle". Yeah, right.
What about the end-user side? You know, where most of the discussion on this originates? CPU ID's are worthless for "anti-piracy"; in that sense they fall right in there with all of the other schemes used in the desktop environment for the last 20 years. How effective have they been?
Of course, this all completely ignores the real question that has people all hot under the collar. What about the potential for abuse in the end-user area?
In a typical week, I use about a half-dozen different machines heavily and a much larger number of them 'a little bit'. If all of them had CPU ID's that just 'had' to be included in any transaction, I can imagine what my use pattern would look like - and anyone who tried to do base some 'targeted mailing' on it would be completely wrong. (This, of course, skips some of the other issues - I'll leave those as an exercise for the reader.) Even if I only used one box - say the closest thing I have to a 'personal' machine, that's changed completely every 18 months for the past few years - again, anything based on that would be completely wrong.
How about one of the other big concerns - encryption? Yes, you use this unique value to seed a secure transaction, and someone else has managed to get it from your machine with, say, a trojan plug-in for your browser, making cracking the transaction that much easier. Not too different from other secure transaction issues, but the same value is used for all additional transactions, making it much more valuable in cracking them.
--
Who cares about ID's? (Score:1)
Granted, I'd love a copy of Adobe Premiere, but the $500 price is just out of my range. For most of the people who are using it, $500 is lost in the noise of other expenses. That doesn't mean I'm going to pirate it; it means I'll find another solution.
-Chris
Chip Fabrication Process, and deeper questions (Score:1)
Seriously, though, there was no reason whatsoever for them to be screwing around with putting the serial number option on the sillicon for these PII's. It's a waste of space, and a dirty little trick.
Which brings up another question: the serial number itself can't be implemented on the actual CPU, can it? It must be on a rom attached to the cpu card. Which means if we pop open a PIII, we could theoretically pull off the chip with the serial number and put one on with whatever number we wanted? Even if the serial number is on the same chip as other data (maybe where the microcode updates go? or the speed information?) -- all the data on that chip should be easy enough to copy.
Anyone wanna open their PIII and start experimenting?
-Chris
Who cares about ID's? (Score:1)
"Hey, want a new Pentium III? I've only been using it for a month. I'll give it to you! For free! As long as you visit the FBI website twice a week."
-Chris
96 bit serial number (Score:1)
-Chris
acce$$ (Score:1)
-Chris
Why AMD? (Score:1)
-Chris
Lost sould, this is Why AMD (Score:1)
-Chris
Chip Fabrication Process (Score:1)
-Chris
Who cares about ID's? (Score:1)
-Chris
Oh boy!! (Score:1)
Who cares about ID's? (Score:1)
Intel snafu (Score:1)
"WE WERE INFORMED by a customer that the chip ID was present in the mobile Pentium II processor in mobile module form,"
Note the word "mobile" Desktop users shouldnt have anything to worry about.. Well, that is except for the stuff they didnt tell you about.. you can always worry about that.
Paranoia (Score:1)
Freaky... (Score:1)
Like the poster says, "I want to believe..."
Still, what with all the security holes, any one that steals any of my Intel PCs is seriously screwed. =)
big brudder foo. (Score:1)
"Don't make me throw yo ass foo!" - Mr. T
Who cares about ID's? (Score:1)
What happens when you sell your P3? (Score:1)
I'm not getting a warm-and-fuzzy feeling.
Ya Whatever (Score:1)
big brudder foo. (Score:1)
Hardware is not evil, software is... (Score:1)
Processor ID is not the only publicly available ID (Score:1)
The most reliable source seems to be the harddrive manufacturer and drive serial number. All available within the IDE and SCSI APIs if I recall correctly.
Why the sudden fuss? The Bad Guys Out There have known this for a long time...