Putting together a computer from old components

[Spiros Bousbouras]

The Intel management engine and the analogous from AMD creep me out so I
want to put a computer together using old processors from before these
facilities came into the picture. Operating system will be Linux. I
already have AMD Sempron and Athlon processors and now I need the rest.
www.pcupgrade.co.uk sells old motherboards. I have a few questions
related to my endeavour :

Is there any notion of compatibility between computer cases and
motherboards ? If yes , how do I ensure that I get a case such that an old
motherboard (one with an AM2 socket) fits ?

Are there any issues related to my efforts I should be aware of ? I mean
issues specific to putting a computer together from old parts.

The only experience I have in putting a computer together is adding
components to a barebones computer but I've never done it from scratch.

--
vlaho.ninja/prog

[RobH]

You will need a case which takes the size of the motherboard. You can
choose between ATX and mATX motherboards. You can fit an mATX in a ATX
case but not the other way round.
Usually I choose the motherboard first, then a case to suit it.

[bad sector]

There still are beautiful people on this planet, people for whom
the fury of either profit or consumption is not a god. There are
also these open skeleton )exoskeletal?( arrangements but I hope
that buying is not what tickles your fancy (because whereas
they cost less to make they sell for more than a real case).

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/G/15/apparel/rcxgs/tile._CB483369412_.gif

Simply put, all mobos have at least one ruggedized mounting hole
by which they can be suspended from the ceiling if you like. The
rest as they say, will become history. Keep at it, we have lost
many a good men to progress, proverbial words like 'hacking' to
juvenile snotty IT-pranks whereas hacking used to mean exactly
what you're trying to do (with due respect to absolute original activity
with nachette in hand).

Me, I'm dreaming of a white Christmas, not on account of snow
but on account of cryogenics, as in submerged (already talking
to an appliance hacker for a bar-fridge takedown).


--
If DIY were a religion, hmmm ...I just made it one.

[Marco Moock]

Am Mon, 29 Nov 2021 11:26:00 -0000 (UTC)
schrieb Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com>:

> Is there any notion of compatibility between computer cases and
> motherboards ? If yes , how do I ensure that I get a case such that
> an old motherboard (one with an AM2 socket) fits ?

Yes, there is, for that time, ATX, mATX and BTX existed. Check what
standard your case supports and then buy the motherboard.
mATX will fit in ATX cases, but not vice-versa. BTX is for cases with
the door on the right side. It is a standard, but was less used by
motherboard manufactures directly, mostly for OEM PCs from Dell, HP,
Siemens etc.

[Anssi Saari]

Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> writes:

> Is there any notion of compatibility between computer cases and
> motherboards ? If yes , how do I ensure that I get a case such that an old
> motherboard (one with an AM2 socket) fits ?

ATX form factor for motherboards has been a standard for a couple of
decades now so should be OK.

> Are there any issues related to my efforts I should be aware of ? I mean
> issues specific to putting a computer together from old parts.

RAM size and CPU performance might be an issue. I assume you'll have
SATA for storage and PCIe for video which should be fine.

As for performance, my wife had a Core2quad desktop until a couple of
years ago but it choked really hard on simple stuff in Microsoft Word. I
was surprised the CPU seemed unable to handle a simple document with
text and pictures. Now I assume you won't be running Word or Windows but
performance might still be an issue, with just web browsing.

I remember I had a core2duo laptop, two cores at 1.33 GHz. It was fine
for email and a little software development with Qt but web browsing got
so painful I got something faster. This was about 10 years ago. The
replacement laptop is a core i5, two cores at 2.4 GHz. It's also
starting to feel sluggish now with web browsing. Email and my little
development and whatever stuff is still fine.

So, it really depends what you intend to do with your computer. Light
use, a little web browsing on simple web pages, email, simple stuff
probably not a problem. Heavy web browsing on heavy pages, editing
complex documents or video, encoding video... Might need a lot of
patience.

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On 29 Nov 2021 at 14:30:41 GMT, "Anssi Saari" <a...@sci.fi> wrote:
>
> So, it really depends what you intend to do with your computer. Light
> use, a little web browsing on simple web pages, email, simple stuff
> probably not a problem. Heavy web browsing on heavy pages, editing
> complex documents or video, encoding video... Might need a lot of
> patience.

Definitely put as much RAM in the machine as it can take, in order to
keep it even vaguely viable. Use SSDs as well - give the old thing every
possible advantage.

What I'd actually suggest is a Pi4 or CM4/8gig though. It'll almost
certainly be quicker than an Athlon for most things and has a lot more
Linux support (don't use PiOS for your desktop though, it still has the
horrific laggy mouse). You can even pull out a PCIe x1 slot, easier on a
CM4 carrier board.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"I'd tried caffeine a few times; it made me believe I was
focused and energetic, but it turned my judgment to shit.
Widespread use of caffeine explains a lot about the
twentieth century." - "Distress", Greg Egan

[Richard Kettlewell]

Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> writes:
> The Intel management engine and the analogous from AMD creep me out so I
> want to put a computer together using old processors from before these
> facilities came into the picture.

Is there a reason why you don’t want to buy a current platform and
disable the feature in the firmware? You might need to do a bit of
research to ensure you get something where disabling it is possible but
it seems a lot easier than building a computer from old parts.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[SH]

On 29/11/2021 11:26, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:

what is it about the intel management engine that creeps you out?

P.S. I have a number of spare PCs in loft up for sale if you are
interested...


Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe board with an AMD Athlon with 4GB RAM

Asus P5LD2-Deluxe with Intel processor and 4GB ram



I think I have a 3rd machine knocking about thats more recent I will
have to have a dig.

[Marco Moock]

Am Mon, 29 Nov 2021 15:34:58 +0000
schrieb SH <i.lov...@spam.com>:

> what is it about the intel management engine that creeps you out?

It may contain a backdoor, see:
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/sysadmin/the-management-engine-an-attack-on-computer-users-freedom

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 16:30:41 +0200
Anssi Saari <a...@sci.fi> wrote:
> Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Is there any notion of compatibility between computer cases and
> > motherboards ? If yes , how do I ensure that I get a case such that an old
> > motherboard (one with an AM2 socket) fits ?
>
> ATX form factor for motherboards has been a standard for a couple of
> decades now so should be OK.
>
> > Are there any issues related to my efforts I should be aware of ? I mean
> > issues specific to putting a computer together from old parts.
>
> RAM size and CPU performance might be an issue. I assume you'll have
> SATA for storage and PCIe for video which should be fine.

SATA yes ; for video I ideally want a graphics card on the motherboard. This
is my current set up and it works fine. No gaming (apart from Pacman
clones :-) ) ; I do watch DVDs on the computer and youtube videos.

> As for performance, my wife had a Core2quad desktop until a couple of
> years ago but it choked really hard on simple stuff in Microsoft Word. I
> was surprised the CPU seemed unable to handle a simple document with
> text and pictures. Now I assume you won't be running Word or Windows but
> performance might still be an issue, with just web browsing.

As I said in my opening post , I'm going to run Linux.

> I remember I had a core2duo laptop, two cores at 1.33 GHz. It was fine
> for email and a little software development with Qt but web browsing got
> so painful I got something faster. This was about 10 years ago. The
> replacement laptop is a core i5, two cores at 2.4 GHz. It's also
> starting to feel sluggish now with web browsing. Email and my little
> development and whatever stuff is still fine.
>
> So, it really depends what you intend to do with your computer. Light
> use, a little web browsing on simple web pages, email, simple stuff
> probably not a problem. Heavy web browsing on heavy pages, editing
> complex documents or video, encoding video... Might need a lot of
> patience.

My experience with my single core Sempron and 2 gigabytes of memory has been
very satisfactory. For example I may run crafty (a chess engine) which
usually consumes 99% of CPU time , listen to music with mplayer and type
stuff using vim and the responsiveness of the computer does not go down
at all. Obviously , if I do all 3 then crafty will only use about 80% of
CPU time so it will analyse fewer positions per second than otherwise but I
don't really mind. When I use ffmpeg similar experiences apply. But I
wouldn't use ffmpeg and crafty at the same time with a single core. I
wouldn't expect the responsiveness to go down even for such a situation but
it wouldn't be the best use of computer time.

Some web pages are slow but I do almost all my web browsing with a text
browser so that's not a problem either. If a website slows down my computer
, I consider the site badly designed and therefore something to avoid if at
all possible (which almost always is) rather than an incentive to buy a
faster computer.

--
There are always people who think that horror movies are just kind of one
half-step away from porno to begin with.
Stuart Gordon

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On 29 Nov 2021 15:16:44 GMT

Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2021 at 14:30:41 GMT, "Anssi Saari" <a...@sci.fi> wrote:
> >
> > So, it really depends what you intend to do with your computer. Light
> > use, a little web browsing on simple web pages, email, simple stuff
> > probably not a problem. Heavy web browsing on heavy pages, editing
> > complex documents or video, encoding video... Might need a lot of
> > patience.
>
> Definitely put as much RAM in the machine as it can take, in order to
> keep it even vaguely viable. Use SSDs as well - give the old thing every
> possible advantage.

As I say in <A+E9DrGA...@bongo-ra.co> , 2 gigabytes RAM work fine at
present and I don't expect that my computing needs will go up. But if it's
easy to add more , I will add more. I also don't see why SSD vs hard disk
would matter to me because my current hard disk doesn't get much work.

> What I'd actually suggest is a Pi4 or CM4/8gig though. It'll almost
> certainly be quicker than an Athlon for most things and has a lot more
> Linux support (don't use PiOS for your desktop though, it still has the
> horrific laggy mouse). You can even pull out a PCIe x1 slot, easier on a
> CM4 carrier board.

Several questions here :

- Do ARM processors have anything analogous to the Intel management engine ?
If not then yes , that's a plus in my book. Plus I want to learn some ARM
assembly so having an ARM processor would be a bonus.

- Can a Raspberry Pi offer a usual desktop experience ? For example can I
expect the applications on Linux repositories to work ? I would want to use
a graphical browser every now and again even if it's very slow on some websites.
I definitely want mplayer to work decently. I also want compilers like gcc
and SBCL but I don't imagine these would be a problem.

- Why would Linux be better supported on a Raspberry Pi than an AMD processor ?
As far as I know , Linux works equally well on all mainstream processors.

- For desktop , I don't use a desktop as such. I use Xorg , the ratpoison
window manager , several terminal emulators , graphical vim , I have PDF
files open and several mplayer windows playing videos from my disks or
occasionally a DVD (I watch in installments hence the several windows).
Otherwise I do stuff from the command line including starting applications.

--
I suspect the typical software engineer doesn't work overtime to make the
schedule, but in order not to feel so bad about not making it.
"Why does software cost so much?" by Tom DeMarco

[Spiros Bousbouras]

Is it possible to disable them ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Secure_Technology does not say anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine :

Disabling the ME[edit]

It is normally not possible for the user to disable the ME. Some
undocumented methods to do so were discovered, but these methods
are not supported by Intel.^[43]

If you can point me to a guide which shows how you can reliably disable the
functionality on either Intel or AMD processors , I would appreciate it.
While I'm at it , there are companies which build a computer for you
according to specifications. If you happen to know any which also offer to
disable for you the management engines of the computer they build , that
would be even better. I *would* prefer modern hardware , I'm just not
prepared to pay the price of having the management engines.

--
vlaho.ninja/prog

[Paul]

How many computers do you currently have ?

Is there a specific objective this computer has to meet ?
Is it running the heating system, recording security video,
stuck in the loft ?

People don't usually start building computers for no reason.

Perhaps if you described your objectives and provided some
background, we could offer some suggestions.

*******

One of the problems with older motherboards, is the "bad cap" problem.
For example, a regular poster here, he bought a "spare" motherboard.
His original motherboard failed. Well, the spare only operated
for a short time before it failed too. Viewing a picture of the
new failure, it had a leaking capacitor on it, and that's why
it is unstable and won't behave properly.

When buying the old stuff, you want materials not of that
generation, to reduce the risks involved in "investing in junk".

If it were not for the "bad capacitor era", I could be a bit
more encouraging about Smithsonian-style compute projects.
But as long as scumbags are willing to sell broken goods to
people, it's sometimes safer to buy newer kit.

There was one (exceptional) Dell model, where 99% of the
motherboards failed. And it means, if you shop for a "spare"
one of those, it is virtually guaranteed to be defective.
Whey you buy those, the advert must say "has been completely re-capped".
Recapping can cost $50 to $100, and you have to find someone
willing to do the work (it is hard work and not for the
squeamish as a form of employment).

*******

You could do an RPi 4 and use an SSD for storage with it.
There's no ME on that. Some of the Pi models are in shortage
right now, and only the higher end ones might be available
(like the one with max RAM).

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/raspberry-pi-4-ssd-test,39811.html

Paul

[Marco Moock]

Am Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:34:56 -0500
schrieb Paul <nos...@needed.invalid>:

> One of the problems with older motherboards, is the "bad cap" problem.

If these are through-hole caps you can solder them out and replace
them, I often do that if a cap fails.

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 15:34:58 +0000
SH <i.lov...@spam.com> wrote:
> On 29/11/2021 11:26, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> > The Intel management engine and the analogous from AMD creep me out so I
> > want to put a computer together using old processors from before these
> > facilities came into the picture. Operating system will be Linux. I
> > already have AMD Sempron and Athlon processors and now I need the rest.
> > www.pcupgrade.co.uk sells old motherboards. I have a few questions
> > related to my endeavour :
> >
> > Is there any notion of compatibility between computer cases and
> > motherboards ? If yes , how do I ensure that I get a case such that an old
> > motherboard (one with an AM2 socket) fits ?
> >
> > Are there any issues related to my efforts I should be aware of ? I mean
> > issues specific to putting a computer together from old parts.
> >
> > The only experience I have in putting a computer together is adding
> > components to a barebones computer but I've never done it from scratch.
> >
> what is it about the intel management engine that creeps you out?

That there is a part of the processor running secret code which has access to
everything on the computer (memory , storage media , internet communications)
and nothing in the software that you choose to run on your computer can
affect this. There is no documented way to disable it either. For Intel
management engine in particular , a huge number of vulnerabilities have been
found. That's the part with 0 speculation. The speculation that it may be an
intended backdoor , is plausible. This is the summary. For full details see
(a lot worse for Intel than for AMD)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Secure_Technology

Note also that these management engines are an additional large and
complicated attack surface which doesn't buy *me* anything. I'm not even sure
why they're there , I mean what is the official justification ? Why should I
undertake the additional risk , if I don't get anything in return ? The
better performance is of almost no consequence to me and the management
engines are unrelated to the better performance anyway. So , even if I wanted
the better performance , it seems like a dubious deal that I should accept a
greater risk as a price.

> P.S. I have a number of spare PCs in loft up for sale if you are
> interested...

> Asus A8N32-SLI Deluxe board with an AMD Athlon with 4GB RAM
>
> Asus P5LD2-Deluxe with Intel processor and 4GB ram

I'd rather avoid Intel since their processors have had too many
vulnerabilities over the years even unrelated to the management engine.
Assuming the AMD processor is old enough not to have the "secure technology"
(how can one know this ?) and the computer is working , I'm interested. Email
me (see header) and we'll talk privately.

> I think I have a 3rd machine knocking about thats more recent I will
> have to have a dig.

--
FFT is well established but will there be one day a fast and furious Fourier
transform ?

[Richard Kettlewell]

Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> writes:

>>> The Intel management engine and the analogous from AMD creep me out
>>> so I want to put a computer together using old processors from
>>> before these facilities came into the picture.
>>
>> Is there a reason why you don’t want to buy a current platform and
>> disable the feature in the firmware? You might need to do a bit of
>> research to ensure you get something where disabling it is possible
>> but it seems a lot easier than building a computer from old parts.
>
> Is it possible to disable them ?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Secure_Technology does not say
> anything.

https://software.intel.com/sites/manageability/AMT_Implementation_and_Reference_Guide/default.htm?turl=WordDocuments%2Fdisablingintelamt.htm

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[Richard Kettlewell]

Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> writes:

> SH <i.lov...@spam.com> wrote:
>> what is it about the intel management engine that creeps you out?
>
> That there is a part of the processor running secret code which has
> access to everything on the computer (memory , storage media ,
> internet communications) and nothing in the software that you choose
> to run on your computer can affect this.

You could say much the same about the CPU microcode or the platform
firmware (e.g. UEFI, or BIOS if you can find something old enough).

> Note also that these management engines are an additional large and
> complicated attack surface which doesn't buy *me* anything. I'm not
> even sure why they're there , I mean what is the official
> justification ?

Platform-level remote management.

> I'd rather avoid Intel since their processors have had too many
> vulnerabilities over the years even unrelated to the management
> engine.

How many is too many? AMD and ARM CPUs have had vulnerabilities too, and
almost certainly will have more in the future. In all cases I suspect
you’re more at risk from vulnerabilities in the software you run on
them.

Disabling this stuff may reduce your total risk, but not necessarily by
as much as you hope.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On 29 Nov 2021 at 18:46:48 GMT, "Spiros Bousbouras" <spi...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On 29 Nov 2021 15:16:44 GMT
> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
>> On 29 Nov 2021 at 14:30:41 GMT, "Anssi Saari" <a...@sci.fi> wrote:
>>>
>>> So, it really depends what you intend to do with your computer. Light
>>> use, a little web browsing on simple web pages, email, simple stuff
>>> probably not a problem. Heavy web browsing on heavy pages, editing
>>> complex documents or video, encoding video... Might need a lot of
>>> patience.
>>
>> Definitely put as much RAM in the machine as it can take, in order to
>> keep it even vaguely viable. Use SSDs as well - give the old thing every
>> possible advantage.
>
> As I say in <A+E9DrGA...@bongo-ra.co> , 2 gigabytes RAM work fine at
> present and I don't expect that my computing needs will go up.

You don't use the modern web much, I take it - that forces higher specs
on you otherwise, or your view of the Internet will slowly constrict.

> But if it's
> easy to add more , I will add more. I also don't see why SSD vs hard disk
> would matter to me because my current hard disk doesn't get much work.

Swap.

>> What I'd actually suggest is a Pi4 or CM4/8gig though. It'll almost
>> certainly be quicker than an Athlon for most things and has a lot more
>> Linux support (don't use PiOS for your desktop though, it still has the
>> horrific laggy mouse). You can even pull out a PCIe x1 slot, easier on a
>> CM4 carrier board.
>
> Several questions here :
>
> - Do ARM processors have anything analogous to the Intel management engine ?
> If not then yes , that's a plus in my book. Plus I want to learn some ARM
> assembly so having an ARM processor would be a bonus.

I am fairly sure (but not 100%) that they do not. Raspberry have solid
documentation, and I've not found an extra controller inside but also
they don't make a statement that there isn't (I mean why would they
think to?)
https://www.raspberrypi.com/documentation/computers/processors.html#bcm2835

> - Can a Raspberry Pi offer a usual desktop experience ? For example can I
> expect the applications on Linux repositories to work ?

Yes. Full Ubuntu, Fedora, Manjaro, Kali distros/repos and more are
available.

> - Why would Linux be better supported on a Raspberry Pi than an AMD processor ?
> As far as I know , Linux works equally well on all mainstream processors.

I was thinking modern well-defined fixed Pi hardware would be more
likely to have current support than random 2005 Athlon boards, but it
could be comparable. AMD were very second-string back then and some
stuff never made it into mainstream Linux support - more could have
fallen out by now. Check the video, audio and network on your board of
choice are supported before purchasing.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
None of this will matter in 20 billion years.

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On 29 Nov 2021 at 20:23:46 GMT, "Richard Kettlewell"

<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> writes:
>> SH <i.lov...@spam.com> wrote:
>>> what is it about the intel management engine that creeps you out?
>>
>> That there is a part of the processor running secret code which has
>> access to everything on the computer (memory , storage media ,
>> internet communications) and nothing in the software that you choose
>> to run on your computer can affect this.
>
> You could say much the same about the CPU microcode or the platform
> firmware (e.g. UEFI, or BIOS if you can find something old enough).

The firmware on a hard drive is clever enough, if someone wants in
badly. They're general purpose computers themselves now.

> Disabling this stuff may reduce your total risk, but not necessarily by
> as much as you hope.

The software you run will always be more risky than the hardware. Do you
have time to read the source before compiling? Do you even trust your
compiler? Worrying too much about this stuff is fruitless.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
Remember, if something is on the news that means
it's rare enough that you shouldn't worry about it.
It's the things that _don't_ make the news due to
being so common that you should worry about.
-- Stephen Sprunk

[SH]

Yes I often find that Asus were producing "deluxe" versions where as
much as humanly possible was stuffed onto the motherboard...

The A8N32SLi-Deluxe I have knocking about from its manual:

https://dlcdnets.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/socket939/A8N32-SLI%20Deluxe/E2280_A8N32-SLI_Dlx.pdf

Nvidia chip for up to 4 EIDE devices and 4 SATA2 drives

A silicon image sata controller for an internal and an external SATA drive

So supporting up to 10 drives.

Supports up to 10 USB 2.0 ports

IEEE 1394 Firewire

Two lots of gigabit LAN, one being Marvell and the other being Nvidia

plus all the usual audio including optical and co-axial SPDIF


plus a floppy port.... Whats one of those? ;-D

[Paul]

There are a couple ways to fit electrolytics.

One company I worked at, used "generous holes" for caps. They
set up the automatic insertion equipment to "form" the legs. This
allows the caps to be held in place, by a bit of spring tension.

The caps on such boards, are dead easy to remove. Remove the
solder from a hole with the solder sucker, and the leg comes
out without too much difficult.

The second cap mounting method is "interference fit".
Only five thou clearance between leg and pth. Once filled
with solder, even with a vacuum desoldering machine, they're
almost impossible to remove. You could try ChipQuik, you
could take your Dremel and just grind the cap off the
board. There's lots of stupid stuff to try. But when I
tested with our vacuum desoldering station, multiple attempts,
I couldn't get them out (without being abusive, and you
can't be doing that to customer boards).

So yes, sometimes, the caps do come out. But if you want to
run a business re-capping boards, there will be days you'll
regret your business model.

Paul

[SH]

Ok, I'll drop you an email in a bit.

There is no onboard video but there is a PCIe video card installed that
is dual monitor DVI (not sure if its DVI-I or DVI-D version though)

The memory is from memory 4 off 1GB Geil DDR2 sticks.

The case has definately seen better days. This machine is circa 2005
ish, but would need to boot up to see teh bios date string.

[Theo]

Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2021 at 18:46:48 GMT, "Spiros Bousbouras" <spi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > - Do ARM processors have anything analogous to the Intel management engine ?
> > If not then yes , that's a plus in my book. Plus I want to learn some ARM
> > assembly so having an ARM processor would be a bonus.
>
> I am fairly sure (but not 100%) that they do not. Raspberry have solid
> documentation, and I've not found an extra controller inside but also
> they don't make a statement that there isn't (I mean why would they
> think to?)
> https://www.raspberrypi.com/documentation/computers/processors.html#bcm2835

Arm designs processors, it doesn't design chips. It's up to the chip designer
to decide what else to put in there. For example you can get the same Arm
core with an Arm, Qualcomm or Broadcom GPU.

It is quite common for systems on chip to have additional microcontroller
cores for managing things, for example booting, clocks, power and DDR
timing. Some of those may be exposed (as a 'system control unit'), but
others aren't. For example the battery will have a microcontroller in it to
keep an eye on the charging/discharging profile, the touchpad will have a
microcontroller for speaking USB, etc etc. Many of those microcontrollers
don't have access to system memory (especially not the ones off-chip), but
some do. They don't often appear on the datasheet as a 'processor' but
simply as a functional block for doing those things (eg a battery monitoring
unit). Almost none of the firmware that runs on all of these pieces is open
source.

In the Raspberry Pi case there's a GPU that runs closed-source firmware, so
it's not unusual in that respect. Whether it's analogous to the Intel ME
depends on what you're concerned about: the GPU doesn't have a network
socket on it, but then it can reach the ethernet controller (maybe another
CPU!) over the memory interconnect. (Arm offers a System MMU to provide
some degree of protection here, but the RPi doesn't use one).

So if you were worried about a supply chain attack providing you malicious
GPU firmware then it's not going to help. If you're worried about malicious
network traffic attacking the GPU, that won't get to the GPU in normal
operation.

I'm not familiar with the internals of the 15-20 year old AMD systems you're
talking about, but I would be unsurprised if there were similar control
processors in there for doing similar kinds of tasks - just more basic ones.
And of course those systems haven't had a BIOS update in 15 years so any
vulnerability lurking in there is not going to be patched. When you start
building a system with a GPU, network card, storage controller, etc, that's
all firmware that hasn't seen updates in a decade or more.

TL;DR: you need to boil down to exactly what is objectionable in the Intel
ME before asking whether the same threat exists on other platforms. 'Other
things running software you can't see / isn't open source' is a given, on
anything more complex than a Sinclair Spectrum.

Theo

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:34:56 -0500
Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote:
> On 11/29/2021 6:26 AM, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> > The Intel management engine and the analogous from AMD creep me out so I
> > want to put a computer together using old processors from before these
> > facilities came into the picture. Operating system will be Linux. I
> > already have AMD Sempron and Athlon processors and now I need the rest.
> > www.pcupgrade.co.uk sells old motherboards. I have a few questions
> > related to my endeavour :
> >
> > Is there any notion of compatibility between computer cases and
> > motherboards ? If yes , how do I ensure that I get a case such that an old
> > motherboard (one with an AM2 socket) fits ?
> >
> > Are there any issues related to my efforts I should be aware of ? I mean
> > issues specific to putting a computer together from old parts.
> >
> > The only experience I have in putting a computer together is adding
> > components to a barebones computer but I've never done it from scratch.
> >
>
> How many computers do you currently have ?

1 desktop and some spare parts.

> Is there a specific objective this computer has to meet ?
> Is it running the heating system, recording security video,
> stuck in the loft ?

General desktop usage : writing text , computer programming (nothing too
long) , watching videos and DVDs , listening to audio CDs , internet browsing
(mainly with a text browser.I'm not worried about slowness with a graphical
browser so lets not get stuck on that) , running chess engines (I don't need
maximum performance). See also <A+E9DrGA...@bongo-ra.co> in this
thread.

I also have an external hard disk which I connect through a USB port. The disk
mostly has videos in 360p or 720p resolution and I want the transfer rate to
be good enough that I can watch them at normal playback speed (using mplayer) .

I also want to be able to connect a DVD reader/writer ; no need for blu-ray.

> People don't usually start building computers for no reason.

The central point is to avoid a CPU with a management engine rather than
build one , I simply thought that building one is a promising approach to my
central goal. My current desktop (on which I do the aforementioned
activities) has parts whose age ranges from 14 to 6 years. During this period
it has seen almost continuous usage. There's no indication that it is close
to giving out but it is only wise to have a plan B and I want this plan B
computer not to have a CPU with a management engine. So for example , a used
computer with a CPU without a management engine and which has been used less
than mine would suit me fine.

> Perhaps if you described your objectives and provided some
> background, we could offer some suggestions.
>
> *******
>
> One of the problems with older motherboards, is the "bad cap" problem.
> For example, a regular poster here, he bought a "spare" motherboard.
> His original motherboard failed. Well, the spare only operated
> for a short time before it failed too. Viewing a picture of the
> new failure, it had a leaking capacitor on it, and that's why
> it is unstable and won't behave properly.
>
> When buying the old stuff, you want materials not of that
> generation, to reduce the risks involved in "investing in junk".
>
> If it were not for the "bad capacitor era", I could be a bit
> more encouraging about Smithsonian-style compute projects.
> But as long as scumbags are willing to sell broken goods to
> people, it's sometimes safer to buy newer kit.

Ok , thanks for the information. Is the "bad cap" problem affected by age
or time of total usage ?

[...]

> You could do an RPi 4 and use an SSD for storage with it.
> There's no ME on that. Some of the Pi models are in shortage
> right now, and only the higher end ones might be available
> (like the one with max RAM).
>
> https://www.tomshardware.com/news/raspberry-pi-4-ssd-test,39811.html

Higher end is fine.

--
Luckily I was a few rows forward from the ones that were showered with
tea, coffee and bodily fluids and I managed to dodge the coins. I only
saw 1p and 2p coins, but I supposed that was all your fans could
afford.
http://www.footballforums.net/forums/showthread.php/298033-Lets-all-loff-at-Wolves-thread?p=8239086&viewfull=1#post8239086

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Sat, 4 Dec 2021 15:56:11 -0000 (UTC)
Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:34:56 -0500
> Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote:
> > Is there a specific objective this computer has to meet ?
> > Is it running the heating system, recording security video,
> > stuck in the loft ?
>
> General desktop usage : writing text , computer programming (nothing too
> long) , watching videos and DVDs , listening to audio CDs , internet browsing
> (mainly with a text browser.I'm not worried about slowness with a graphical
> browser so lets not get stuck on that) , running chess engines (I don't need
> maximum performance). See also <A+E9DrGA...@bongo-ra.co> in this
> thread.

I describe my current usage also in <kAJYUx0G...@bongo-ra.co> .

[SH]

On 04/12/2021 15:56, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:34:56 -0500

Sprios, where are you located country wise?

[Paul]

The playback of videos seems the most demanding thing.

The reason I advocate for hardware acceleration, is there
is a lot of variation in the software code written for
the decoding of video. There can be a 10:1 difference between
the best and worst codes, for a particular video format.

This might be similar to Skybucks system. The caps failed on his
two boards, so that's a negative.

https://pcper.com/wp-content/uploads/2005/11/2ce0-blockdiagram.jpg

But chipsets like that at least have PCI Express slots. You can
fit a more modern video card to get the benefit of hardware
video decoding. But even the used prices of video cards like
these, can be too high.

https://developer.nvidia.com/video-encode-and-decode-gpu-support-matrix-new

To do better on an Intel, you'd want a processor with QuickSync,
which is the Intel built-in decoder.

And AMD systems more modern than the S939 in the above block diagram
(where the RAM is connected directly to the S939 processor),
some of those have built-in graphics. Those have variously
been called "APUs", because they are both CPU+GPU. If a built-in
graphics is provided, then it can mean not having to shop for
a separate video card to reap the benefit of hardware video
decode.

Paul

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 20:05:24 +0000

This page is about disabling AMT :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine :
The Management Engine is often confused with Intel AMT (Intel Active
Management Technology). AMT runs on the ME, but is only available on
processors with vPro. AMT gives device owners remote administration of
their computer,^[6] such as powering it on or off, and reinstalling the
operating system.

However, the ME itself is built into all Intel chipsets since 2008, not
only those with AMT. While AMT can be unprovisioned by the owner, there
is no official, documented way to disable the ME.^[citation needed]

Although it says "citation needed" , I find it unlikely that , if there was a
way to disable the ME , someone would not have added it to the article by now. In
any case see also

https://www.techrepublic.com/article/is-the-intel-management-engine-a-backdoor/ :
Various sources report that Intel's latest x86 chips contain a secret
backdoor. SoftPedia cites security expert Damien Zammit as revealing that
these Intel chips come with an embedded subsystem called the Management
Engine (ME) that functions as a separate CPU and cannot be disabled, and
the code is proprietary.
[...]

However, the ME contains the AMT instructions, which can function
similarly to wake-on-LAN. That means if the right person used the ME to
gain access to a machine, they could then take advantage of AMT and boot
the machine. Viola! Your PC is now readily available for someone with the
requisite skills to pick and choose what they want--this could include
company data.
[...]

The good news is that you can disable the AMT feature. Here's how.

* In the PC BIOS, go to Advance Chipset Feature | Intel AMT
(Enabled,Disabled)
* During boot, CTRL+P to go to AMT Menu | Intel ME Control State
(Enabled,Disabled)

There is no way to know if the ME has the ability to re-enable AMT on its
own. Why? Because no one except Intel knows what exactly it contains. So,
you could disable ATM on the machine and not know if the ME can
circumvent that BIOS setting.

--
There's a definition of horror: the genre where all the decisions are
wrong ones.
James Nicoll
https://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/msg/292fed66d24dc0cf?dmode=source
<7u7q7k$mmm$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>

[Paul]

It's not a "secret" enclave, as there was at least one slide
deck about the feature set.

I've not seen a slide deck since the Wifi was added to
the more modern setups. The Intel NIC is dual-headed
(so certain NICs are needed to make it work). And it is
possible the Intel Wifi modules have dual head as well.

http://pds4.egloos.com/pds/200706/04/57/ps_adts003.pdf

Since it potentially can be used for anti-theft purposes,
that's why there can't be a hardware jumper plug to
guarantee it is off. A thief would just use that.

Paul

[Spiros Bousbouras]

If you mean the slides on the link , it's not clear to me which particular
slide you have in mind. In any case , there is no precise definition of what
counts as secret. One might say that , since we know that the management
engine exists , it's not secret.

> Since it potentially can be used for anti-theft purposes,
> that's why there can't be a hardware jumper plug to
> guarantee it is off. A thief would just use that.

Are you saying that the management engine serves anti-theft purposes ? How ?

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Sun, 5 Dec 2021 15:39:49 -0000 (UTC)
Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 20:05:24 +0000
> Richard Kettlewell <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

> > > Is it possible to disable them ?
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Secure_Technology does not say
> > > anything.
> >
> > https://software.intel.com/sites/manageability/AMT_Implementation_and_Reference_Guide/default.htm?turl=WordDocuments%2Fdisablingintelamt.htm
>
> This page is about disabling AMT :
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine :
> The Management Engine is often confused with Intel AMT (Intel Active
> Management Technology). AMT runs on the ME, but is only available on
> processors with vPro. AMT gives device owners remote administration of
> their computer,^[6] such as powering it on or off, and reinstalling the
> operating system.
>
> However, the ME itself is built into all Intel chipsets since 2008, not
> only those with AMT. While AMT can be unprovisioned by the owner, there
> is no official, documented way to disable the ME.^[citation needed]
>
> Although it says "citation needed" , I find it unlikely that , if there was a
> way to disable the ME , someone would not have added it to the article by now. In
> any case see also
>
> https://www.techrepublic.com/article/is-the-intel-management-engine-a-backdoor/ :

[...]

There is also
www.howtogeek.com/334013/intel-management-engine-explained-the-tiny-computer-inside-your-cpu :

You can't disable the Intel ME. Even if you disable Intel AMT features in
your system's BIOS, the Intel ME coprocessor and software is still active
and running. At this point, it's included on all systems with Intel CPUs
and Intel provides no way to disable it.

--
And in the movie's center, circling warily, are Reynolds and Deneuve,
both so worn, so worldly, so cynical, they don't even realize what
total romantics they are.
www.rogerebert.com/reviews/hustle-1976

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 20:23:46 +0000
Richard Kettlewell <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> writes:
> > SH <i.lov...@spam.com> wrote:
> >> what is it about the intel management engine that creeps you out?
> >
> > That there is a part of the processor running secret code which has
> > access to everything on the computer (memory , storage media ,
> > internet communications) and nothing in the software that you choose
> > to run on your computer can affect this.
>
> You could say much the same about the CPU microcode or the platform
> firmware (e.g. UEFI, or BIOS if you can find something old enough).
>
> > Note also that these management engines are an additional large and
> > complicated attack surface which doesn't buy *me* anything. I'm not
> > even sure why they're there , I mean what is the official
> > justification ?
>
> Platform-level remote management.

This applies to Intel Active Management Technology , not the management
engine.

> > I'd rather avoid Intel since their processors have had too many
> > vulnerabilities over the years even unrelated to the management
> > engine.
>
> How many is too many? AMD and ARM CPUs have had vulnerabilities too, and
> almost certainly will have more in the future.

I don't have a precise criterion. I don't keep precise statistics either but
I see in the news announcements about vulnerabilities on Intel processors a
lot more often that I do for AMD (not just related to the management engines).
Also , en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine mentions many more
vulnerabilities than en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Secure_Technology .

> In all cases I suspect
> you’re more at risk from vulnerabilities in the software you run on
> them.

Possibly. But I don't run software I don't need and I try to use the simplest
software which achieves what I need although there are other criteria than
simplicity. The problem with the management engines is that they offer a large
attack surface and they don't offer any functionality of use to me , at least
to the extent that we know what functionality they offer.

> Disabling this stuff may reduce your total risk, but not necessarily by
> as much as you hope.

--

vlaho.ninja/prog

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 20:23:46 +0000
Richard Kettlewell <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> writes:
> > SH <i.lov...@spam.com> wrote:
> >> what is it about the intel management engine that creeps you out?
> >
> > That there is a part of the processor running secret code which has
> > access to everything on the computer (memory , storage media ,
> > internet communications) and nothing in the software that you choose
> > to run on your computer can affect this.
>
> You could say much the same about the CPU microcode or the platform
> firmware (e.g. UEFI, or BIOS if you can find something old enough).

Sorry , I forgot to reply to that part.

If you mean that CPU microcode potentially has access to the same things then
yes. But if you mean that it actually does then there's no reason to think
so. If for example I learned that , microcode of some CPU , which microcode
ostensibly exists to compute the sine fucntion , tries for access to the
network , I would be worried.

Regarding firmware , similar considerations apply but I only have a vague
idea what firmware duties are. But one central criterion is the same : do the
accesses follow from the nature of its functions or are they arbitrary ? If
it's the latter , I'd rather avoid the extra risk.

[Richard Kettlewell]

Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Spiros Bousbouras <spi...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> SH <i.lov...@spam.com> wrote:
>>>> what is it about the intel management engine that creeps you out?
>>>
>>> That there is a part of the processor running secret code which has
>>> access to everything on the computer (memory , storage media ,
>>> internet communications) and nothing in the software that you choose
>>> to run on your computer can affect this.
>>
>> You could say much the same about the CPU microcode or the platform
>> firmware (e.g. UEFI, or BIOS if you can find something old enough).
>
> Sorry , I forgot to reply to that part.
>
> If you mean that CPU microcode potentially has access to the same
> things then yes. But if you mean that it actually does then there's no
> reason to think so. If for example I learned that , microcode of some
> CPU , which microcode ostensibly exists to compute the sine fucntion ,
> tries for access to the network , I would be worried.

It’s not close to things like network interfaces, and it’s not very
large, and it’s not well documented outside CPU vendors, but it does
control the semantics of many machine instructions, so in practice it’s
pretty powerful.

> Regarding firmware , similar considerations apply but I only have a
> vague idea what firmware duties are. But one central criterion is the
> same : do the accesses follow from the nature of its functions or are
> they arbitrary ? If it's the latter , I'd rather avoid the extra risk.

It can interrupt the OS at any time (into SMM) and do anything it
likes. Powerful and, I suspect, a lot more flexible than microcode

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[Paul]

On 12/6/2021 5:57 AM, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:

>
> Are you saying that the management engine serves anti-theft purposes ? How ?

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/05/intels-management-engine-security-hazard-and-users-need-way-disable-it

"But troublingly, AMT is only one of many services/modules that come
preinstalled on Management Engines. The best recommendation we can make for addressing
this vulnerability today is to disable that specific AMT module, because Intel doesn’t
provide any way to generally limit the power of the ME.

But vulnerabilities in any of the other modules could be as bad, if not worse, for
security. Some of the other modules include hardware-based authentication code and

a system for location tracking and remote wiping of laptops for anti-theft purposes.

While these may be useful to some people, it should be up to hardware owners to decide
if this code will be installed in their computers or not. Perhaps most alarmingly,
there is also reportedly a DRM module that is actively working against the user’s
interests, and should never be installed in an ME by default.
"

The description here doesn't even mention location tracking.
Instead, AMT locks up the laptop, preventing things like boot
from happening.

https://support.hp.com/ca-en/document/c02558764

The feature set then, is a function of what module happens
to be loaded in ME MINIX.

Paul

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On 29 Nov 2021 22:35:14 GMT

Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2021 at 18:46:48 GMT, "Spiros Bousbouras" <spi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 29 Nov 2021 15:16:44 GMT
> > Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@usually.sessile.org> wrote:
> >> Definitely put as much RAM in the machine as it can take, in order to
> >> keep it even vaguely viable. Use SSDs as well - give the old thing every
> >> possible advantage.
> >
> > As I say in <A+E9DrGA...@bongo-ra.co> , 2 gigabytes RAM work fine at
> > present and I don't expect that my computing needs will go up.
>
> You don't use the modern web much, I take it - that forces higher specs
> on you otherwise, or your view of the Internet will slowly constrict.

I do but mostly from a text browser and it's lightning fast !

> > But if it's
> > easy to add more , I will add more. I also don't see why SSD vs hard disk
> > would matter to me because my current hard disk doesn't get much work.
>
> Swap.

Do you mean swap memory ? My understanding is that if your applications require
so much memory that they need to use swap memory then it's going to make the
computer very slow whether you use a SSD or hard disk.

> >> What I'd actually suggest is a Pi4 or CM4/8gig though.

[Information about the Raspberry Pi snipped.]

Thanks for all that. If I have any further questions , I will post them on
comp.sys.raspberry-pi .

[Spiros Bousbouras]

On 03 Dec 2021 13:56:52 +0000 (GMT)

What is objectionable is the increase in the attack surface created by the
management engines (both Intel and AMD) without sufficient explanations on
what functionality they offer (useful to the user or in general). There is
also the fact that many respectable sources express similar concerns. The
question "Do ARM processors have anything analogous to the Intel management
engine ?" indirectly also asks whether similar concerns have been expressed
about ARM processors ; and it's not just a matter of existence but also of
degree. By degree I mean the degree of at least the following 2 parameters :

- Complexity of the functionality ; larger complexity means greater opportunity
for security flaws.

- Justification of the functionality from the point of view of the end user
(me !).

There is of course also the binary parameter of whether it's secret or not.
The more things are secret , the worse. I probably can't avoid all secret
firmware (as you point out) but I will try to avoid what I can. I note also
that there is a political component which seems to parallel the time when
Stallman started his GNU efforts towards open source software , at least
according to how he tells the story. According to Stallman , most software
used to be free , not necessarily in the modern legal sense as embodied by
the GPL and other licenses but in a practical sense in that you could inspect
the software and modify it. Then the trend started to move towards close
source and Stallman tried to oppose this with some success. In an analogous
fashion , in hardware the trend seems to be towards more secrecy and more
taking control away from the end user and owner of the hardware for unknown
ends. I'm trying to resist this. I don't expect I will be anywhere near as
successful as Stallman was with software but I (will) do what I can.

Anyway , thanks for all the technical information. Even if I don't manage to
mitigate my risks with my proposed measures (you seem to think that I may
even be increasing my risks) , I'm learning useful relevant information.

--
vlaho.ninja/prog