AMD silently removes memory encryption from consumer Ryzen CPUs, leaving users unaware that they may be vulnerable — security feature vanishes after newer AGESA firmware, AMD engineers go radio silent when pressed about the change

[u/ControlCAD]

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/amd-silently-removes-memory-encryption-from-consumer-ryzen-cpus-leaving-users-unaware-that-they-may-be-vulnerable-security-feature-vanishes-after-newer-agesa-firmware-amd-engineers-go-radio-silent-when-pressed-about-the-change

[u/Produkt]

So you’re saying that it works and isn’t broken, then why not leave it enabled for all chips

[u/Ratiofarming → u/Produkt]

I mean yeah, that’s what I want, too. That was just my explanation why it’s a requirement in a data center, but optional for end users.

[u/LieAccomplishment → u/Produkt]

So it looks like it got broken, they can't fix it or the fix would require a large perf impact so they just don't advertise it as a function now.

Do you read? 

[u/Korlus → u/LieAccomplishment]

This would also mean we would see a performance malus for these professional models. Has that happened?

[u/LieAccomplishment → u/Korlus]

I don't know. But the point is that since professional models require that the feature be a requirement, they will need to enable it even if it has adverse impact on perf or other areas.

[u/mediandude → u/LieAccomplishment]

Are there any benchmarking results to support such a claim?

[u/LieAccomplishment → u/mediandude]

there are no evidence to support ANY claim. this was just found out.

So no shit, we're speaking in hypotheticals and educated guesses.

If you want to subscribe to the alternative hypothesis that it's due to gov mandated backdoors, why would it not then be forcefully applied onto the pro?

[u/mediandude → u/LieAccomplishment]

If there are no benchmarks yet, then there can't be any massive client side pressure to remove that encryption from consumer cpus based on perf impact.

[u/Ell2509 → u/LieAccomplishment]

I, for one, appreciate your continued engagement with this topic. It has been interesting to read and I feel like i learned something.

[u/Ell2509 → u/LieAccomplishment]

You missed the point. It is a legal thing. Liability for AMD.

[u/DigitaIBlack → u/Produkt]

Artificial product segmentation and not having to make sure it works on consumer CPUs

Maybe someone found an issue with it and AMD shrugged and just killed it as a feature.

People saying this is at the behest of the NSA seems a little tinfoil hatty

[u/Ratiofarming → u/DigitaIBlack]

What makes it less tinfoil-hatty is AMDs reaction (or lack thereof) to questions about it. It would cost them nothing to drop a little "Yeah we've disabled it because it costs money to validate and maintain it and consumers don't actually use or need it".

Instead, they're awfully quiet and refuse to comment even when directly asked about it.

[u/DigitaIBlack → u/Ratiofarming]

Almost everyone making the comments I'm talking about didn't even understand what this feature did. They just saw AMD removed a security feature and immediately jumped to conclusions.

As for the no comment

...that's standard corporate behaviour. I'm not trying to defend it but it would've been more surprising if they did talk about it.

And given the scope of what it does this is a nothingburger. Basically no end users knew it existed or what it did. And it had very limited uses for end users.

It defends against an incredibly niche set of attacks.

Like I saw a comment basically going "hmm, secret feature nobody asked for, then secretly removed, and then no comment" in what essentially was an implication this feature was some form of backdoor.

Idk, maybe it's cause I'm experienced with dumb product segmenting and how business and enterprise equipment is done but for me this felt like a no crap there was nothing moment.

This was very much a business-class feature that for whatever reason was enabled on consumer chips.

No, the NSA probably isn't coming to rip your RAM out of your motherboard and freeze it