[Cryptography] Did Intel just execute its warrant canary ?

[Tom Mitchell]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Henry Baker <hbaker1 at pipeline.com> wrote:

> FYI -- I conjecture that the second GPU story following less than one
> month after the first GPU story is not just coincidence, but one of the
> requirements of a secret National Security Letter to Intel.
>
> The first story shows how GPU's can house malware, while the second story
> explains that Intel won't be sharing its GPU code where such malware will
> be housed.
>
> "no reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this software is
> permitted"
>
> As feared, the DMCA will be used against those who attempt to look for
> this malware in Intel GPU's.
>


 I am curious how the law interacts with anti virus needs.

<http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography>Some anti virus has
non US origns and is excluded from some government systems.
Companies with multi nation research programs may have to exchange binary
blobs
so the local office is insulated.

The storage that Flash uses is ugly and is an example of the risk that this
invites
a new class of  "evercookie" with a ground glass payload.

One worry is that patent law may be involved here.  The design of graphics
subsystems
is full of cross licensing tangle and header files and anything as vague as
a white board
engineering presentation can expose a shared idea that is not covered with
walls of steel.
None of these massive chips can enumerate the active patents so they cross
anything
they can and shut the door to classes of speculation.



-- 
  T o m    M i t c h e l l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20150608/6b235ca5/attachment.html>