> Purism is trying hard to neuter this ME?
They're using entirely closed source Intel CPUs. If you don't trust Intel, it makes no sense to believe that disabling a specific feature they've long provided ways to disable and which so many people claim is a backdoor would be where a backdoor would be placed. Why would they put it in what people are disabling when they make the whole CPU? It's extremely complex and not inspectable.
nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpql2hmray6wtvmhesww5uua8ty87nklw8x8nf8nt2p9zsx0g50c5dq7qpe88 Aside from that, your belief that an open source CPU would prevent this is false. You would have no way to verify that what you are provided matches the open source design. If Intel made a fully open source CPU, you would be trusting them just as much since they manufacture it and you cannot inspect / verify that it matches an open source design. Even if you could, it wouldn't prove it doesn't have intentional holes.
Your probably AI generated answer thread in parts as well as many of its contained arguments are "unsubstantial" and "utter nonsense". You sound like the typical MacOS user, and you actually argument against your own product; are you Daniel Micay? 😉
"Oh, we cannot prove it anyway, so we have to believe them..." This is ridiculous.
Why wouldn't there be a way to prove that the chips are made open source if the architecture is known? Even if you had to destroy them to check it, you could still take random samples.
Why not programmable architectures/FPGA?
Why closed source drivers?
Why reverse engineering?
Why are practically all chips under US license produced in US or franchised in Taiwan and therefore under "Patriot Act"? The most probable attack vector is inside the compromised ME.
