WTF: Kill switch for Sandy Bridge?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,443
124
106
Intel is really killing the awesome vibes of the Sandybridge by stuff like this killswitch and (AFAIK) bolting their crappy GPU solution to 'each and every' processor of this microarchitecture.

BTW this killswitch stuff is already present with BIOS support like in AMI BIOSs why do Intel consider it worth their time to build redundancy in their processors.

Can anyone tell me why are there even people complaining about the SB IGP? Intel isn't forcing you to use it. It doesn't affect the CPU's speed or power consumption when it's disabled. It's not and never meant to replace your uber GTX 580 SLI.

It's akin to like saying the 2G antenna on a 3G phone makes it suck; it's retarded.
 

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
2
0
I can see it. It's being made in Israel. If they want to disable Iran Nuclear Reactor. Kill switch! More effective than Stuxnet.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Can anyone tell me why are there even people complaining about the SB IGP? Intel isn't forcing you to use it. It doesn't affect the CPU's speed or power consumption when it's disabled. It's not and never meant to replace your uber GTX 580 SLI.

It's akin to like saying the 2G antenna on a 3G phone makes it suck; it's retarded.

For many people it's a complete waste of die space.
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
For many people it's a complete waste of die space.
On this forum, or in general? If it's the former I agree, but in the case of the latter the percentage of people using Intel IGPs is disturbingly high. Plus it's Intel, so you can be sure they aren't dedicating any significant amount of die space to graphics.:p
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,697
6,257
126
For many people it's a complete waste of die space.

I'm sure there are other wastes of die space, but no one gets upset by them. Who cares? If it performs and costs how you need/want it to, buy it whether it has extras you don't need or not.
 

Mark R

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,513
16
81
I don't get why this is negative press. This is a highly desirable feature, which is under administrator control, and which is completely reversible. It's absolutely perfect for business laptops or PCs, where theft, and data theft are serious concerns.

Essentially, the way the systems works is as follows:
- A security module is built into the chipset (only the business/pro-level 'Q' series chipsets will have the security module integrated - consumer motherboards/laptops where security is less important, will have the feature left out).
- The BIOS is specifically designed to interact with the hardware security module. If the security module has been set to 'theft mode', then the BIOS will not complete POST, rendering the computer unbootable.
- If secure data is to be stored on the computer's hard drive, then the security module can perform full-disk encryption, using a key stored in hardware. If the security module has been set to 'theft mode', it will deny access to the key, rendering the hard drive unreadable.

There are a number of ways that the security module can be triggered into theft mode:
- It can periodically contact a server run by the computer administrator, to check that authorization hasn't been withdrawn. If it receives a 'reported stolen' message, the security module will lock down. Because the security module is integrated with the BIOS and hardware, it is able to communicate via wired or wireless LAN connections during POST, before the OS is loaded.
- It can time out. The system administrator can trigger a time-out interval - e.g 7 days, without reauthorization. Because the security module is integrated with the RTC in the same hardware, timeout is guaranteed and tamperproof.
- An OS driver can listen to system management messages, and trigger a theft condition if a 'reported stolen' message is received.
- If the computer is a laptop with integrated cellular modem, an encrypted SMS sent to the modem, will trigger 'theft mode' immediately (or when the computer is next booted).

Which methods are used will depend on how the PC is set up by the administrator. Additionally, the messages are matched to the individual hardware security module's private keys - which are held only by Intel. So in order to 'kill' a computer, the registered owner (or their authorized deputy) must contact Intel with the details, and Intel will provide the encrypted message that needs to be transmitted to the computer to trigger a kill. Because the hardware security module can only be triggered by a secure code known only to itself and Intel, it is protected from malware or malicious attack. This is also a premium, subscription service. The computer's owner must have registered the computer with Intel, and have paid the subscription for the anti-theft service, in order to be able to get the lockdown code.

If the computer is returned, then simply transmitting a 'restore' command (via the same process as a 'kill' command), then the security module will unlock, and normal function will be restored.
 
Last edited:

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Mark R - just wait until there is a malware exploit and see how much you like it then. :twisted:

:whiste:
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
Mark R - just wait until there is a malware exploit and see how much you like it then. :twisted:

:whiste:
Do you mean like all the malware exploits that have triggered this feature on prior CPUs?
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
8,686
3,787
136
For many people it's a complete waste of die space.

It probably won't be cheaper for Intel to create a seperate chip without the graphics.

No. The Core i3/5/7 have it, and I'm pretty sure Core2 did too (though I can't find the datasheet at the moment).

Are you talking about the XD/NX feature? If you are, they existed back with Prescott Pentium 4's for Intel and Athlon 64s for AMD.
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
It probably won't be cheaper for Intel to create a seperate chip without the graphics.



Are you talking about the XD/NX feature? If you are, they existed back with Prescott Pentium 4's for Intel and Athlon 64s for AMD.
No, this is entirely different. This is Intel Anti-Theft Technology.
 

exar333

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2004
8,518
8
91
Intel is really killing the awesome vibes of the Sandybridge by stuff like this killswitch and (AFAIK) bolting their crappy GPU solution to 'each and every' processor of this microarchitecture.

BTW this killswitch stuff is already present with BIOS support like in AMI BIOSs why do Intel consider it worth their time to build redundancy in their processors.

If you don't like it, don't buy it. Personally, the only time I plan to use the SB GPU would be if my video card failed or replaced and it could stand-in for the time being. Also remember that that GPU space will be purposed for some nice increases in software that will take advantage of it.

Things over time get absorbed into the CPU. Its a trend that has happened for decades now.
 

Spook

Platinum Member
Nov 29, 1999
2,620
0
76
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't the integrated GPU portion of the CPU what intel will be using to assist in drastically decreasing transcoding times? I'm not sure if you guys do much re-encoding, but decreasing encoding times by 2-3times sounds good to me. You don't have to be using the IGP to get the benefits either. Its a feature..... :)
 

Mark R

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,513
16
81
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't the integrated GPU portion of the CPU what intel will be using to assist in drastically decreasing transcoding times? I'm not sure if you guys do much re-encoding, but decreasing encoding times by 2-3times sounds good to me. You don't have to be using the IGP to get the benefits either. Its a feature..... :)

No. You're thinking of AVX (basically SSE5) which is a huge upgrade to the MMX/SSE family of technologies.

This is entirely separate to the GPU (which is an optional component on high-end SB models)
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,574
10,211
126
No. You're thinking of AVX (basically SSE5) which is a huge upgrade to the MMX/SSE family of technologies.

This is entirely separate to the GPU (which is an optional component on high-end SB models)

I think he's talking about the video encoding block, which is a specific bit of hardware in the GPU. Most GPUs include video DECODE hardware, but SB also includes ENCODE hardware.
 

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,443
124
106
I think he's talking about the video encoding block, which is a specific bit of hardware in the GPU. Most GPUs include video DECODE hardware, but SB also includes ENCODE hardware.

I bet the finished video quality of the encode engine is anything but desirable.
 

3dMozaiK

Junior Member
Dec 26, 2010
5
0
0
"The man who trades freedom for security deserves neither"
I dont remember who said this(if I am not wrong an old time American president),but surely a very wise and noble man.
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
"The man who trades freedom for security deserves neither"
I dont remember who said this(if I am not wrong an old time American president),but surely a very wise and noble man.
That's widely attributed to Benjamin Franklin, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Intel's anti-theft technology.
 

Voo

Golden Member
Feb 27, 2009
1,684
0
76
That's widely attributed to Benjamin Franklin, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Intel's anti-theft technology.
Yep, especially considering that you don't give up any freedom except you want to (you've got to buy a version that has it) and don't gain much security (uh so I need something to block the chip from getting outside information? Good old pb will do that job just fine :p)
 

SilverMoon

Junior Member
Dec 29, 2010
1
0
0
I'm drooling over a Sandy Bridge PC to replace my gaming dinosaur.

All this stuff about an anti-theft shutoff being included is likely to get a fair number of people thinking it might be abused in various fantastical ways. Eg OMG now the Chinese government could shut down dissident pc users and hinder the free flow of info, or Yikes! embarrassed governments can stop movements like Wikileaks/their supporters from functioning etc, or Whoa! viruses could shut down machines en masse just for spite. It doesn't have to be true for people to start spinning out all kinds of scenarios and freaking out for nuthin'.

I reckon that Intel wouldn't release the anti-theft feature if it could backfire and hurt them.

I wonder how AMD's Bulldozer will perform vs the Intel Sandy Bridges. Nonetheless, AMD is taking so (zzzzz) long to mention specifics on Bulldozer performance, that I'm jolly likely to have a Sandy Bridge PC long before they get down to cultivating me as a customer. :p Am I the only one thinking that AMD's silence might equate to lost revenue? The PC marketplace is pretty competitive! ;) Time waits for no man (or company)...

Silvermoon
:)
 

yottabit

Golden Member
Jun 5, 2008
1,638
776
146
So, if Europe threatened to boycott Pentium III's because of their unique chip identification feature... they'll have a field day with this one :D