DIG on Intel/Computer backdoors for CIA. (part 1 of 3)

I don't have proof of this yet, but bear with me. If this is something you'd be interested in helping me investigate, by all means do!

Here's what I know:

1) In the 90s Intel's chips were nowhere near the best or fastest and there were a ton of competitors who, frankly, were eating their lunch. Intel CPUs were simplistic toys compared to the CPUs being created by SGI, Sun, IBM, HP, and DEC which all ran their own flavors of UNIX. An intel-based system is what you purchased if you couldn't afford anything better. For any of you in the field back then, RISC architectures had some huge advantages and the x86 ISA was just awful to write assembly in compared to its competitors.

2) Fast-forward to 2010: HP's PA-RISC hardware is no longer sold. SGI is out of business. DEC sold their ALPHA designs to Compaq who then buried them by the time they were purchased by HP. At this point the majority of people and business are using Windows PCs. IBM and Sun are still producing their own hardware and OS but their marketshare has shrunk to a tiny fraction of what it was.

3) Fast-forward to today: Sun was purchased by Oracle. Sun's SPARC architecture was buried a few years ago. IBM is the sole non-PC manufacturer left, but almost all of their non-Intel sales are supercomputers to national laboraties and governments and mainframes to banks. PC/Intel machines running Windows and Linux have taken over. 5 once-major operating systems from those manufacturers are either dead or effectively dead.

Microsoft and software/OS

It seems to me that if the CIA wanted to be able to snoop on and control a huge swath of the population, then this would be a reasonable way to do it:

1) Find a couple of small upstart companies (Microsoft and Intel) who are competing with the old behemoths and, in exchange for cooperation, fund and propel them to the point that they are the platform that most people use. Other companies I can think of that rose quickly and prominantly like Microsoft are Facebook and Google (both CIA-backed), and Amazon (still on my list to research). Hmmmm.

2) When a disruptive technology comes along that threatens Windows (and your backdoors) on servers (i.e.: Linux) you take a two-pronged approach: you use identity politics and SJW bullshit to try to take the reins of the development of Linux (Linus was finally forced out last year because of his "noninclusive" approach), but more importantly, you move your focus to owning the system underneath the OS.

Intel and hardware/firmware

How do you own the system? That's where Intel comes in. I need to do more research, but from what I'm seeing, there have been major exploitable vulnerabilities in Intel's systems at pretty much any given point in time since the 1990s.

https://www.wired.com/story/meltdown-spectre-bug-collision-intel-chip-flaw-discovery/

https://meltdownattack.com/ (details and papers here)

(remember, Meltdown and Spectre were issues for 20 YEARS before they were disovered)

There are tons more examples, but let's continue. How can they have more visibility into your computers and data?

>>5942595

DIG on Intel/Computer backdoors for CIA. (part 1 of 3)

UEFI

First, they did away with the BIOS (which admittedly was pretty awful) and replaced it with UEFI–a very complex and often poorly implemented layer that has its own drivers, network stack, etc. It has it's own operating system, and all of this runs at "ring -2" on the CPU so your software and OS (ring 0), and even your hypervisor (ring -1), can't see it but it has full access to everything in the system, including active memory.

And yes, it turns out you can exploit the UEFI stack and own the system:

https://www.pcworld.com/article/3187264/uefi-flaws-can-be-exploited-to-install-highly-persistent-ransomware.html

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/09/28/uefi_rootkit_apt28/

Intel VISA flaw

The VISA flow has allowed researchers to compromise systems. Intel reports that the flaw has been fixed.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/03/28/mysterious-undocumented-technology-hidden-intel-computer-chips-researchers-say-9044193/

Intel ME

Next they added a management layer to the firmware (Intel Management Engine - ME), including Intel's Active Management Technology. Oops, it can be used to own the system as well:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/intel-amt-vulnerability-hits-business-chips-from-2008-onwards/

(This flaw was avilable for NINE years before it was found)

On-Chip MINIX

And for good measure, you add ANOTHER system that runs at an even higher permission level (ring -3) that has its own OS (MINIX, I shit you not), network stack, filesystem drivers, etc, that gives you god-mode access to everything on the system. Oh, and yes, it can also be exploited:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/minix-intels-hidden-in-chip-operating-system/

DARPA

Due to Q drops, we know that DARPA and the CIA are who funded and propelled Facebook to it's current position of dominance, so they could complete Project LifeLog.

1) DARPA just partnered with Intel on a project to produce next-generation hardware for big data, machine learning, and artificial intelligence: https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-named-darpa-project-focused-machine-learning-artificial-intelligence/

(note: this AI project is called HIVE. If you've been paying attention, that's the same name as one of the CIA exploits revealed in Wikileaks Vault7. They appear to be unrelated, but it's still interesting)

2) Intel provided the data bus, free of charge, for DARPA's CHIPS project: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13115/intel-provides-royalty-free-license-for-aub-data-bus

>>5942599

DIG on Intel/Computer backdoors for CIA. (part3 of 3)

Conclusions

So where does that leave us?

1) Regardless of what OS you run or what your security practices are, you CAN BE OWNED and your data can be accessed. Avoiding Windows simply won't help you.

2) Encryption doesn't help you if your system has been owned at a lower level. software stores information unencrypted in memory and that memory can be read by the lower levels (UEFI, ME, MINIX)

3) You can't buy a computer that isn't very exploitable by someone with the sophistication to do it. All of Intel's non-x86 competitors have been driven out of business.

4) These embedded layers have full access to the networking system and can inspect any packets going in/out of the computer before the OS can even see it. And those packets can be modified before the OS gets them. And they can be blocked. Literally, these deep layers of the firmware could render the machine completely unable to communicate with system devices if they wanted to.

5) Intel has a history of cooperating with DARPA, who helped Facebook and Google take off and allow monitoring of a huge population.

Questions

1) Computers are very complex systems, so aren't these flaws expected? Any one of these issues in isolation is understandable and to be expected, but all of them together? That's enough to make me suspicious.

2) Didn't all of Intel/Microsoft's competitors go out of business because they just couldn't compete? That's the official story. Maybe it's true, but maybe it's not. The CIA or other organizations would definitely have a vested interest in having the majority of computers use one architecture and OS… sure makes exploitation and hacking a lot easier.

3) Are you saying that intel creates the backdoors on purpose? Maybe? Maybe not. Maybe the CIA get a big head-start once these exploits are discovered by the Intel engineers. Maybe Intel waits longer than one would expect to correct these issues? Maybe I've gone completely off the deep end? I dunno.

4) Cui bono? Any organization who values being able to surveil and collect data from the population at large would benefit hugely from this.

Bonus Thoughts

1) Much of our military and military assets/hardware rely not only on intel-based systems, but also intel-based embedded system boards. Our modern military relies on technological superiority and complex internetworking between systems. The implications there are pretty terrifying.

2) Many of our modern cars, airplanes, and other essential devices use intel embedded hardware.

I have a lot more questions than answers, but this seems worth investigating to me.

If you don't read anything else, be sure to look at this link:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/minix-intels-hidden-in-chip-operating-system/

>>5942599

Oops, that one should be Part 2 of 3.

Dig on Intel/Computer backdoors for CIA Summary

Part 1:

Background, history, and CIA control of OS:

>>5942595

Part 2:

Hardware/firmware vulnerabilites to allow remote access regardless of OS/software.

>>5942599

Part 3:

Conclusions and Questions

>>5942616

>>5942701

Yes! You read my mind! Their other approach has been to encourage businesses and individuals to move as much of their data into "the cloud" as possible. If they can own the cloud providers, they already own your data.