Recent comments in /f/Privacy

blueraspberryesketimine wrote

Reply to comment by righttoprivacy in Hardware Backdoors: Intel Management Engine by righttoprivacy

The management engine cannot be completely disabled in intel chips that ship with it because some of the things it handles are required for the chip to actually work. Really, you are better served by getting a chip without a management engine. Most AMD chips have their own version of the intel management engine, so they aren't safe. ARM boards are usually a little safer but not all. All of the Apple chips have a technology very similar to management engine built in. I don't know about the RISC-V boards but they are borderline trash so far anyway so they aren't a great escape route either.

2

righttoprivacy OP wrote (edited )

Reply to comment by Saint_Cuthbert in Hardware Backdoors: Intel Management Engine by righttoprivacy

Personally, I've been using older models allowing at least majority neutering of Intel management engine.

coreboot Thinkpads come to mind.

My personal machines are not the "full ME removal", but vast majority partitions, leaving just what is needed to bring up hardware.

Outside this, there are more "modern" options out there from companies, albeit not removed in same way (disabled under HAP bit and others). Some prefer Arm.

But everyone has a different use cases. I want to be able to use Qubes as an option at times, and some older models are not capable of this. T430 (i5-3320M and greater CPU) and later mostly have the right virtualization options for it.

I see UEFI / BIOS being #1 concern along with some network cards that work along with it. Some for AMT.

It is a shame there aren't more options out there.

1

chatrouge wrote (edited )

Reply to An encrypted and anti-forensic public web chat server by HareCalico

You have your entire name on your github, afterwards clicking on your github account lets me go to your LinkedIn... It's surprising how much you can find about someone just by searching their name or LinkedIn link.

Your code uses HTTP GET for its messaging, instead of post. I assume it is to make it easier for people who are listening to copy packages and just spam them. The software does not even have a simple checksum or any way to even remotely attempt to see if it is tampered. Why not have a P2P or Swarm like software. I am not trusting you with my privacy Umut.

This is at best a hobby project that you should keep to yourself. Horrible opsec btw.

2

righttoprivacy wrote (edited )

Reply to The Internet of Bodies by Saint_Cuthbert

Relatable Noah Yuval Harari quote:

“and covid is critical because this is what convinces people to accept to legitimize total biometric surveillance. If we want to stop this epidemic we need not just to monitor people we, need to monitor what's happening under the skin.” Yuval Noah Harari

"Total."

1

NotQball wrote

Reply to Privacy Guide 101 Release && Maintenance Page Added by PrivacyOsint

Your i2p skills look great. I would have added Postman links to the book. The actual content is recycled crap: XMPP, Retroshare for i2p would have made better sense.
In a lot of cases professionals from Vulkan use pay phones and the Spok network (subscription and equipment). I did have more complicated equipment. Live Long and Prosper!

1

righttoprivacy wrote

Reply to EFF Zine on Surveillance Tech at the Southern Border Shines Light on Ever-Growing Spy Network by PrivacyOsint

The practice zone for new invasive tech? (tech later adopted by towns near you)

Most aren't aware of the 100 mile zone.

Some w/practice don't think rights quite as important within 100 miles of port / border: https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

Over 200 million people live live within 100mile of port / border. Majority of population.

1