cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/58764195

I was in the non-profit shop of a local charity. They accept donations of used computers then resell them to the public. The profit goes to charity. I asked for their oldest machine. It had an AMD chip from the 16h family. Thus, a spychip.

So their oldest machine was still too new for me. I asked why don’t you have anything older? They said the general public would not accept anything older, and so the shop also does not accept anything older. When machines are rejected, they go to a factory that destroys them and recovers the raw metals.

It’s sad to see that pre-spychip machines are being destroyed and that even 2nd-hand customers are being limited to anti-consumer spychip hardware.

OK, I'll bite. What spychip?

OP is a weirdo

https://lemmy.sdf.org/comment/24283353

Supposedly this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Platform_Security_Processor

Microprocessors embedded within a microprocessor which either facilitate remote access or impose closed source software.

• https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000097447/technologies.html
• https://web.archive.org/web/20250920141935/https://www.franksworld.com/2025/09/18/the-intel-backdoor-nobody-can-remove-not-even-you/
• https://consumerrights.wiki/w/AMD_Platform_Security_Processor
• https://hackaday.com/2021/10/01/flaw-in-amd-platform-security-processor-affects-millions-of-computers/

That's not what "spychip" means though. Spychip implies it's spying on you, not just running closed source code (that you can dump, btw). And without the PSP, AMD processors would not necessarily be more secure, the vulnerabilities would just be moved elsewhere; secure VMs, memory encryption, secure boot, etc. would not be possible.

OK, I’ll bite. What spychip?

You asked. Then suddenly you claimed to already have the answer. Calling shenanigans.

Spychip implies it’s spying on you,

No it doesn’t. A chip that spies on you is merely one subset of spychips. A spychip can also facilitate snooping or remote control, for example, without performing the snooping directly.

If a spychip is not a chip that spies on you then your words are meaningless. But then you say a spychip is a chip that enables spying, which is literally equivalent to a chip that spies on you. Please pick a definition and stick with it.

If a spychip is not a chip that spies on you

I didn’t say that

then your words are meaningless.

English is obviously not your first language. My words put through whatever translation tool you are using may be meaningless. Find a better translator.

But then you say a spychip is a chip that enables spying,

Yes.

which is literally equivalent to a chip that spies on you.

No it’s not. The chip need not be making direct observations to facilitate observations. Read the links.

Please pick a definition and stick with it.

Please get help from a native English speaker.

If a spychip is not a chip that spies on you

I didn’t say that

then your words are meaningless.
English is obviously not your first language. My words put through whatever translation tool you are using may be meaningless. Find a better translator.

No, you just edited your comment after I replied. But if you're going to start attacking me instead of the argument, then this discussion is already a waste of time. Hope you have better luck finding a spychip-free CPU somewhere else

Yeah, they don't criticize the security subprocessor, they just call it a spychip and boohoo about how all the new processes have that kind of thing.

Brain-dead enough I think they have to be paid to be that way.

No, you just edited your comment after I replied.

I did not make a meaningful change. And it was before seeing your response. “A chip that spies on you is merely one subset of spychips” has the same meaning as the wordier original. But we need not rely on heresay. Feel free to quote the original if you are sure you were not drunk or hallucinating.

But if you’re going to start attacking me

You’re pushing a straw man. If you feel attacked, suck it up and try to avoid logical fallacy. And in the future, try not to start off with intellectual dishonesty.

That sounds like it makes perfect sense from a high security culture standpoint. It is unknown and from an outside power, therefore it is presumed unsafe.

Of course right now there are a hundred reasons why you should never trust a computer to be private, but I don't see a problem with trying to make that a hundred minus one if that's what someone enjoys doing.

In the context of using this to punch down at a non-profit I can see some reasons.

OP is not a state level target, the consequences of them getting hacked is they home to make a police report and close some bank accounts. The non profit is not concerned with OP being targeted by the US government, their goal is to provide serviceable computers to needy people.

It's surface level relevant to the zero waste conversation, but only if you don't value anything but the old outdated PC. Older processors like this have such bad processing efficiency that the energy savings alone would pay for a new SBC in a year, presuming heavy use. Then there are the logistical costs and labor of managing that supply of old equipment. A few generations of architecture mean that peripheral and add-in cards are not available or wouldn't work. The dwindling stock of donor equipment means that the resources to even assemble a working order PC will be higher than newer equipment.

There's the same arguments to be had about older refrigeration equipment. Yes, it's probably better to keep it serviced, but as soon as a big problem comes along a newer more efficient unit should be installed.

Disliking OP is reason enough to want them out of your feed, you don't have to try to get them by gatekeeping what counts as zerowaste or what counts as valid activism/hobbies. You can just block them and move on.

OP is not a state level target, [...]

That's a very individualist attitude. Even if OOP is doing nothing to combat the rise of fascism, the chip issue affects everyone, including investigative journalists, activists, and others that might get state-level attention without having state-level resources (i.e. being dependent on the likes of random charity shops).

It’s surface level relevant to the zero waste conversation [...]

This reasoning applies equally well to other "waste reduction" hobby projects like spending hours of labor (thus "wasting" the resources it takes to keep a person alive) to fix up an old article of clothing that would otherwise have been discarded, which you could simply have replaced with new mass-produced (and therefore resource-efficient) stuff.

If you genuinely want stuff that wastes labor - like getting ancient computers to work, mending clothes, or high-context living - gone from this community, that is a consistent opinion and we can talk about that.

spending hours of labor

I have no problem with people spending their own labor time.

I do have a problem with dictating how a charity spends their labor time, specifically in a way that would reduce their ability to provide services. If OP offered their labor to handle this consistently for the charity, I missed that.

For the individualist thing.. If there are these concerns, OP should not be just rolling his own jank setup to do his work. There are groups that could provide him with secure hardware or validate the hardware he can get.

I checked and the h16 processor they mentioned uses an Arm a5 core for trustzone functions. There are tools to audit that.

All of this is unreasonable for a charity junk shop.

In the context of using this to punch down at a non-profit I can see some reasons.

The non-profit was not named, so your abusive hyperbole is obvious.

The msg exposes a trend likely occuring at many tech shops by charities who have not figured out how to market pre-spychip machines and likely don’t even have the awareness to know what they are tossing which is being blindly scrapped on the simple basis of age alone.

OP is not a state level target,

As already pointed out, you need not be targeted by feds doing tailored ops:

https://hackaday.com/2021/10/01/flaw-in-amd-platform-security-processor-affects-millions-of-computers/

The non profit is not concerned with OP being targeted by the US government, their goal is to provide serviceable computers to needy people.

This is a false dichotomy. Needy people should have security too. It also misses an important infosec principle: the principle of least privilege. If you don’t need an extra attack surface, it’s unwise to deploy it.

It’s surface level relevant to the zero waste conversation, but only if you don’t value anything but the old outdated PC.

Nonsense. Zero waste of hardware that serves a variety of purposes does not exclude any other zero waste practice.

Older processors like this have such bad processing efficiency that the energy savings alone would pay for a new SBC in a year, presuming heavy use.

How foolish of you to presume heavy use on an arbitrary unknown demographic of users.

Then there are the logistical costs and labor of managing that supply of old equipment.

Perhaps you are in a country where they just toss e-waste into a landfill. In more responsible parts of the world, the logistical costs and labor of properly dispensing the old e-waste is /higher/ than the cost of selling it to a buyer who will use it.

A few generations of architecture mean that peripheral and add-in cards are not available or wouldn’t work.

Blaming designed obsolescence on the older hardware when interoperability matters -- amusing, if you only knew that USB 3 is backwards compatible with USB 2 and that gigabit ethernet is backwards compatible with its predecessor. There is also an absurdity with refusing to buy something designed for upgrades on the basis of /something/ being incompatible, when in fact the new hardware is dispensing of older standards. New laptops are soldering in RAM and if the battery is not soldered in it’s not using standard replaceable cells but rather proprietary batteries that amount to designed obsolescence. Copious cheap old upgrades can be trivially acquired when chronic upgraders dispense of their old gear.

The street market is flooded with old RAM at dirt cheap prices. We don’t need factory new RAM to upgrade our gear.

A 2008 thinkpad is what I use today, after 18 years. The shit you are advocating now has little chance of being usable 18 years from now as the designed obsolescence has evolved and enshitification of products have become increasingly insideous.

The dwindling stock of donor equipment

There is no shortage. It’s the thesis in fact. So much donor equipment is coming in that they must be selective.

Apart from failing to grasp the infosec factor, by fixating on security likely as a not-so-ethical consumer yourself you missed the fact that some consumers simply oppose anti-consumer products even if they don’t give a rat’s ass about security. Individual non-corporate consumers are being pushed to buy products that were made for corps and work against their interests generally.

OP should not be just rolling his own jank setup to do his work. There are groups that could provide him with secure hardware or validate the hardware he can get.

You should stop trying to block the zero waste movement and stop trying to make people dependent on others.

I checked and the h16 processor they mentioned uses an Arm a5 core for trustzone functions. There are tools to audit that.

You mean the 16h, I suppose. Tools to audit that the closed source software does what I want? That’s amusing for sure. I wonder by what magic I’m not permitted to see the code but I can use probably another closed-source blob to verify whether my boot-licking product is doing what /the maker/ intends.

Your comment is useful but just not how you intended. The tools to audit the trustzone functions would at least tell me whether a spychip is present, so I can avoid it.

I do have a problem with dictating how a charity spends their labor time,

Failing to inform yourself about how a charity operates and to oppose the sharing of that info is utter foolishness. To oppose identifying problems, exposure of them, and making improvements is essentially openly hostile to social advancement.

It’s sloppy and reckless to neglect to do some basic homework before selecting charities to support. If they are being needlessly wasteful, they are inefficient.

specifically in a way that would reduce their ability to provide services.

It’s the contrary. Sales facilitates provision of services. You’re advocating needless waste.

If OP offered their labor to handle this consistently for the charity, I missed that.

Probably what you missed was that a customer was in the shop with money and prepared to spend it, but couldn’t because the shop manager made a poor decision on what to accept from donors.

Sales facilitates provision of services.

Maintaining a product takes time and space. The lowest margin, least power efficient, and least in demand items cost the same to sell as everything else that's easier to sell.

They made a decision about resources.

to market pre-spychip machines

Every processor and Soc manufactured since 2012 has some form of security subprocessor, or TPM, or something that you are classifying as a made up term, and which you won't acknowledge are not black boxes across the board like you seem to be implying.

You are wrong about the tech and fearmongering, and you seem entitled.

If you offered the non -profit your time to curate these parts that would be great, or if you seemed more interested in learning then derisive that would have also have been great.

Correction:

They made an uninformed decision about resources.

You will have a hard time convincing me that they thought this through: “these 2013 AMD laptops are pre-spychip, so we could save a few of the latest pre-spychip models and advertise them as pre-spychip to boost interest”.

Every processor and Soc manufactured since 2012 has some form of security subprocessor, or TPM, or something that you are classifying as a made up term, and which you won’t acknowledge are not black boxes across the board like you seem to be implying.

TPM is a different but similar problem. It’s unclear why you are falsely claiming that I will not acknowledge what they are. Where do you get that from?

(edit) I would be in favor of a charity shop also stocking a few pre-TPM laptops.

You are wrong about the tech and fearmongering, and you seem entitled.

I believe you are wrong about the tech and pushing cavalier disregard for wise infosec principles on the basis that you think the spychip can only be exploited by a nation state doing tailored ops. You lack some basic knowledge about bugs.

If you offered the non -profit your time to curate these parts that would be great,

This is not mutually exclusive to exposing inefficiencies. It’s wholly irrelevant to the thread.

(edit) I am exposing a trend that is likely global. If I were to volunteer in my local shop, I would still be exposing this problem. And you would still be taking the cavalier stance that running a spychip is a wise practice if not specifically targeted by a threat agent.

or if you seemed more interested in learning

I did not mean to block you from proving that only a nation state can exploit the spychip. Feel free to educate me.

Your spychip thing is a made up problem.

The distinction is several processor architectures and compatibility.

Go ask them to give your number to the next person they turn away.

Your spychip thing is a made up problem.

It’s on you to debunk the evidence that has been established. You are free to post counter evidence. No one is stopping you.

The distinction is several processor architectures and compatibility.

Luckily we need not upgrade the processor because that is precisely the thing we are keeping back. And we need not upgrade the motherboard in countless different collections of use cases, thanks largely to backwards compatibility.

Go ask them to give your number to the next person they turn away.

I did. One of my local charities already knows what I am looking for. OTOH, they are not diligent. I walked into the shop once and found items they said they would contact me on. This is also not a me problem. It’s a global problem. Your ad hoc idea for just one person will not solve the problem of thousands of pre-spychip machines being needlessly destroyed.

(edit) But I must say it’s a bad idea to for the individual charities to have that task. The public waste management collects the e-waste and distributes to charities what can be used. A DB of what spare parts people need should be implemented at the central point of the collection first and foremost. Getting every charity in the loop would be a good evolution from there but it should start centrally.

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/75183544/28016093

will not acknowledge what they are. Where do you get that from?

That comment.

spychip can only be exploited by a nation state doing tailored ops.

Exploiting these things is only necessary in those kinds of ops, to bypass regular auditing or something like that. Your machine would already be tipped over, top would have admin access by the time someone was hiding a payload in there.

But ok you want a computer that has well documented vulnerabilities that will not be patched
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/amd-wont-patch-all-chips-affected-by-severe-data-theft-vulnerability-ryzen-1000-2000-and-3000-will-not-get-patched-among-others

Edit 8/12/2024 4:45am PT: The researchers who discovered the flaw in AMD's chips contend that the vulnerability impacts all AMD chips extending back to 2006.

Good luck tilting at windmills.

the evidence

The evidence shows it takes a higher level of knowledge and more specialized knowledge to exploit the thing you don't want compared to the thing you do want.

I'm involved in a charity that also ends up with a good amount of computer donations. Unfortunately, we have to be ruthless with what we accept. We have to pay to dispose of ewaste.

In practice, laptops with a dual core processor or higher can be put to use or given a new home. Anything older is useless. We still need to sort through and thin out the numbers at that level however.

Unless you're willing to store the computers for them, until a unicorn comes in asking for one, it's likely a practicality issue. While it's far from perfect, it's required to keep shops like that functioning at all.

A better option might be to go to a retro gaming shop/cafe. They are more likely to stock old hardware to play older games natively. It's mostly consoles, but some also have PCs.

The evidence shows it takes a higher level of knowledge and more specialized knowledge to exploit the thing

I see no evidence from you here. Yes, it requires a big brain. But it does not require a nation state as you originally claimed (which is a composition of many well-paid big brains dedicated to the work professionally). Cybercriminals are not limited to nation states. They operate in all scales, some organised, some not. The evidence shows that a bug in a driver for the spychip is all it takes:

https://hackaday.com/2021/10/01/flaw-in-amd-platform-security-processor-affects-millions-of-computers/

Man this is some fearmongering.

Dude you are more likely to get viruses and exploited running the older hardware.

I understand that vulnerabilities pop up, but at least the within a decade recent stuff gets patched.

That comment.

What you linked is not my comment.

Exploiting these things is only necessary in those kinds of ops,

Nonsense. Any botnet would benefit from exploiting it. The threat is not limited to targeted attack.

Your machine would already be tipped over,

Nonsense. Intel admits that the IME enables remote access.

But ok you want a computer that has well documented vulnerabilities

Of course.

that will not be patched

First of all, bullshit to not being patched. 15h chips are still supported in the free world. See 15h.org. Patching is also not the only remedy. There are many different ways to control for a vuln and sometimes a vuln requires no control at all, depending on the use case and threat model.

I’m involved in a charity that also ends up with a good amount of computer donations. Unfortunately, we have to be ruthless with what we accept. We have to pay to dispose of ewaste.

Charities paying for the e-waste is not universal. Depends on your local waste management. But nonetheless, when a machine is disposed of /someone/ must pay for it one way or another. It’s cheaper to actually use it.

In practice, laptops with a dual core processor or higher can be put to use or given a new home.

The pre-spychip AMDs have anywhere between 2 and 8 cores just before the last segment of 15h chips were made.

Unless you’re willing to store the computers for them, until a unicorn comes in asking for one, it’s likely a practicality issue.

It’s a marketing problem. Consumers don’t know to demand pre-spychip machines because they are wholly clueless about it. A charity shop can manufacture demand just by being transparent in their sales info.

A better option might be to go to a retro gaming shop/cafe. They are more likely to stock old hardware to play older games natively. It’s mostly consoles, but some also have PCs.

That’s a good idea. Either way, it requires an intervention in the status quo. In my region, the public is blocked from getting access to rejected hardware, which goes straight to the (apparently secret) disposal site.

not my comment.

Yes I know... It's how you responded to that

Are you just a chatbot that's prompted to be contrarian or something???

Man this is some fearmongering.

The evidence is in front of you. Hackaday.com is publishing facts. These facts do not make you fearful yet you call them fearmongering.

Dude you are more likely to get viruses and exploited running the older hardware.

Nonsense. Vulns in the older hardware are mostly of the known variety. New hardware is rich in the unknown variety of vulns, which by their nature you don’t know about and cannot control for.

I understand that vulnerabilities pop up, but at least the within a decade recent stuff gets patched.

And new vulns get introduced. Even the patches themselves bring new vulns.

Nothing in my response to that post expresses or even implies an acceptance of TPMs.

Are you just a chatbot that’s prompted to be contrarian or something???

Your inability to simply directly quote what you are claiming is more characteristic of a chatbot. Why can’t you quote my words that lead you to believe I have endorsed TPMs?

Charities paying for the e-waste is not universal. Depends on your local waste management. But nonetheless, when a machine is disposed of /someone/ must pay for it one way or another. It’s cheaper to actually use it.

Your forgetting storage costs. The value of older computers often doesn't compare well with storage costs, particularly given the amount of time they sit there for. That's what does us in. We only have so much space, and dozens of computers can eat that quickly. It's similar with old monitors.

The pre-spychip AMDs have anywhere between 2 and 8 cores just before the last segment of 15h chips were made.

I wasn't sure where the cutoff was, in practice.

It’s a marketing problem. Consumers don’t know to demand pre-spychip machines because they are wholly clueless about it. A charity shop can manufacture demand just by being transparent in their sales info.

In practice, most can't. They don't have the reach to change people's views on the scale needed. They would also need to deal with people who didn't understand what they were buying. Older computers often need a bit of finessing to get the most out of. Sticking windoze 11 on them, and giving them out to OAPs or single mums is asking for very frustrated complaints.

That’s a good idea. Either way, it requires an intervention in the status quo. In my region, the public is blocked from getting access to rejected hardware, which goes straight to the (apparently secret) disposal site.

If you think it's viable, make a small business out of it. Tell the charity shops you will take the old laptops off their hands to repurpose them. Extra qudos to you, if you can mix and match to make, and donate a few "supercharged" computers that would be of use to their customers. Unfortunately I suspect the number of customers is too small however, and you would run into the same issues they do.

I totally share the desire for really cheap very old hardware. But is there any financial justification for a charity shop paying to stock it? Plus the energy cost to run it if you do buy it.

Then compare to the price tag of a pi zero.

But is there any financial justification for a charity shop paying to stock it?

There is financial justification if they can actually sell it. And of course not if they cannot sell it. We don’t get a crystal ball. It’s a judgement call to predict whether they can sell it. They have opted to be risk averse. The decision was likely made without awareness of pre-spychip characteristics and without considering whether it can be marketed as such. It would be interesting to know if a shop has actually tried that, which can confirm that pre-spychips don’t sell even when marketed as such.

One of the problems is that the shop cannot handle supporting the public on linux. Independent of hardware performance, they abandoned linux in the store and returned to only selling Windows machines. Their staff turnover was too high to keep training staff on giving linux support.

Plus the energy cost to run it if you do buy it.

Energy cost is the same. A 65w PSU that is pegged will draw 65 watts regardless of what it drives. If the hardware is not being heavily tasked and the platform is lean, then there is only a difference on responsiveness but not on energy. Furthermore, some of these pre-spy chips have a TDP of 17w, which is interesting enough that recent machines are still being produced with them:

https://cputronic.com/index.php/cpu/amd-a4-4355m

A 17w TDP means it’s efficient enough to be fanless, or to not need to spin a fan often. It’s foolish to let laptops with 17w APUs get tossed when the very same CPU is still going into modern laptops precisely because of their efficient /for the money/.

Some of the higher TDP chips from the same family are notoriously inefficient. So sellers and buyers need some awareness. In the worst case, an inefficient chip is not so inefficient in a cold region or cold season. We cannot say from 10,000 feet whether such instances would be inefficiently deployed when speaking independant of the regional climate.

Its not just about being able to sell it, but selling it for enough to justify the shelf space it takes up and how long it will be sat around waiting for it to sell.

Regardless, the answer's the same. Crystal ball, etc

Energy cost is the same. A 65w PSU that is pegged will draw 65 watts regardless of what it drives. If the hardware is not being heavily tasked and the platform is lean, then there is only a difference on responsiveness but not on energy.

I can't believe I'm saying this, and I'm aware of the potential for innuendo here, but I am going to have to ask what you mean by "pegging" a PSU.

A 65W PSU can supply at most 65W, but it doesn't "draw 65 watts regardless". It will draw less than max power if it is using less.

This can be easily verified by using a power meter on the outlet. I have machines with 90W and 25W PSUs drawing only 9W and 4W respectively at idle.

I can’t believe I’m saying this, and I’m aware of the potential for innuendo here, but I am going to have to ask what you mean by “pegging” a PSU.

A 65W PSU can supply at most 65W, but it doesn’t “draw 65 watts regardless”. It will draw less than max power if it is using less.

Yes, indeed. I think we have the same understanding.

Pegging means the appliance is drawing the max amount of current. As a PC becomes more efficient, the PSU does not shrink. It just gives more calculations for the same energy drawn. But if it’s mostly at idle doing basic tasks like web browsing, there isn’t a notable consumption difference. A 65W PSU was typical two decades ago, and also still today.

It's pretty clear I made the assumption TPMS would fall under your "spychip" categorization

Completely ridiculous. You are fearmongering. Hackaday is fine.

“Fearmongering” was your response to the hackaday link -- which supports my thesis not yours. Now you say it’s fine despite the contradiction with the narrative you try to peddle. You have some cognitive dissonance to sort out.

You started with this false claim:

which you won’t acknowledge are not black boxes across the board like you seem to be implying.

The claim is false for two different reasons:

1. I did not refuse to acknowledge that they are not black boxes.
2. Some are black boxes, and some are not. It depends on the maker.

Then despite your failure to directly quote what you think supports your claim, you contradict yourself by claiming a TPM /would/ satisfy my definition that covers closed-source code while simultaneously asserting that TPMs are not black boxes. You need to sort out your brain malfunction and get some consistency.

It’s bizarre that you make this meaningless yet contradictory speculation in the first place, then attack the speculation because I made no claim about TPMs that you could attack.

The TPM is hardware constitutes a spychip as far as I’m concerned to the extent that it’s closed-source. But some are not.

You

TPM is a different but similar problem.

Also you

The TPM is hardware constitutes a spychip as far as I’m concerned

You are running out of tokens or something

The article doesn't actually support your "thesis"

Oof.. you had to snip out the critical qualifier “to the extent that it’s closed-source”. You’re profoundly despirate in trying to come up with a distraction from your shit show.

Of course it does. It spotlights the PSP infosec shitshow arising out of the AMD spychips. Also shows that a single individual researcher was able to discover it and w/some collaborators demo the exploit (no nation state actor or nation state budgets needed). You have failed to understand my position at a basic level if you can’t see this.