[mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] [Fwd:[opensuse-offtopic]AndnowtheManchurianmicrochip]

[Ingles, Raymond]

> From: Aaron Kulkis

> Most VLSI and ULSI chips these days, including CPUs even, are done
> using circuit libraries.
>
> You think the Chinese lack the intelligence necessary to, say,
> modify some circuits, given the lay-out data?

 No, I don't. I've already discussed how they could do real damage that
way, with much smaller changes.

 I dispute the idea that they can change these circuit libraries to the
point of essentially sticking in an entire hypervisor and hidden OS
without compromising functionality in other ways. Heck, if they could do
that, they could crush Intel and AMD in a couple of years by
outdesigning them.

> Any plan that relies on absolutely lame-brained concessions by
> American management wanting to do business in China, and Chinese
> duplicity taking advantage of those concessions to conduct
> technological espionage is pretty much guaranteed to succeed.

 Stealing technology is different from subverting it.

> Really?
> 
> How detailed are these tests?

 Each individual logical unit, plus 'fuzz' tests to see how it handles
out-of-spec input. They're continually adding tests, too - they missed
the FDIV problem in the Pentium before, and they stress out the FPU a
lot more now.

> Back in 1980, It was possible for a single person to understand
> at a very detailed level everything that was happening inside

 And now you're expecting the Chinese to understand something at the
level of a Core 2 Duo better than the people who designed it? At the
turnaround times of a modern fab plant?

> What if the redesign to the chips keeps the "extra" functionality
> turned off until an internal counter has run past a certain point?

 Where do you keep the counter, and the switching logic... when all the
available silicon already has a purpose?

> It turns out, that the Japanese Army was using the same code
> system, but a cryptanalyst told them that their code was weak;

 The problem is, you're not acting like a cryptanalyst. You're not
telling me *how* these sorts of things are 'broken', you're just
asserting they are without any kind of backup, just handwaving. Given
the fact that you're prone to make baseless assertions you can't back up
(see below), why should I trust your unvarnished say-so?

> A difference in perspective changes the the opinion of what
> is possible and what is not.

 So... show me the dam. Explain to me with some actual details how this
system is supposed to work.

> You don't seem to realize -- once the Americans design the circuits,
> in many brands, the Chinese then control the ENTIRE REST OF THE
PROCESS.

 Document that, don't just assert it.

> Ship a couple of lots of motherboards that are untampered with
> to establish "validation" of the design to the US company, and
> once they trust it, start slipping in bugged motherboards.

 Which then fail badly because you missed something. Errata are common
enough already - I had an ASUS P5A motherboard and it just flat wouldn't
work right with an Nvidia AGP card. Your Chinese designers can't predict
the future, exactly what kind of changes and stresses their clandestine
modifications may undergo. When the first run works, but all the other
ones that are ostensibly identical suddenly crash every time you play
sound with a particular sound card, people will start investigating.

 I'm sure Chinese cyber-warfare types are good. I just don't think they
are superhuman.

> We're not talking about high-end motherboards here...we're talking
> about motherboards aimed at the market on which officers and
> operations staffs make up their oh-so-precious PowerPoint files.

 And they still have to care about performance for a given price, or
people won't buy them.

> >  As I've already noted repeatedly, a distributed system capable of
> > running the equivalent of a 'background task' like that is nearly
> > impossible to design and implement.

> I think you lack creativity.
> Or you naively assume that everybody is honest.

 So enlighten me. Show me your creativity. *Explain* how this is
supposed to work.

> >  (Oh, BTW, I knew you couldn't substantiate your charge about taxes.
Odd
> > that that was about the only part of my message you *didn't*
quote....
> 
> I have no intention of searching the archives for all of your silly
> political pronouncements over the years -- the mere fact that your
> .sig lines come direct from Dumbocrook Underground is evidence enough.

 As I noted before, assertions with no intention of backing them up.

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                           (313) 227-2317

                                1992:
 Republicans: Their candidate is a draft dodger, ours is a war hero.
 Democrats: It doesn't matter if our candidate went to Vietnam.

                                2004:
 Democrats: Their candidate is a draft dodger, ours is a war hero.
 Republicans: It doesn't matter if our candidate went to Vietnam.
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it.