this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2025
39 points (89.8% liked)

Privacy

3562 readers
135 users here now

Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.

Rules

PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!

  1. Be civil and no prejudice
  2. Don't promote big-tech software
  3. No apathy and defeatism for privacy (i.e. "They already have my data, why bother?")
  4. No reposting of news that was already posted
  5. No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
  6. No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)

Related communities:

Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.

founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
fxomt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
otter@lemmy.ca
shaytan@lemmy.dbzer0.com
fxomt@piefed.social
39
I feel like all this is futile. Hardware backdoors probably exist, and if so, what's the point? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 6 months ago by IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/privacy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Example: Intel ME, AMD PSP, and potential backdoor in the "Baseband Processor" in phones...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

RISC-V may be an answer in the future, especially the open source implementations.

Baseband processors are a more difficult subject.

[–] refalo@programming.dev 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I feel like RISC-V has already been ruined by vendor-specific proprietary extensions.

[–] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You just leave those bits out when making your own CPU.

[–] refalo@programming.dev 1 points 6 months ago

Sure, but I think chances are high that "your own" will be much slower than the others.