>>> Mr. Selli has said:
>>> *That IBM's POWER CPU's have a hardware level backdoor and have had
>>> backdoors in the past whilst providing no real evidence to support that
>>> those claims,  
>>    I did provide with the evidence:
>> https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20170907.084234.3d39055c.en.html  
> That .pdf you linked is for IBM's x86 products, which they stopped 
> making 7 years ago.

>>    Why do you write easy to disprove falseness?  Don't you have a minimum
>> of self-respect?  
> Ah the pot calling the kettle black.
>>> he bolstered that argument by stating that IBM's work with
>>> the US military is suspect and thus concludes guilt by association.  
>>    No, I just pointed out that the fact that IBM does indeed put hardware
>> and software remote-control devices inside it's chips is an established
>> and documented truth.  
> Again a BMC isn't a backdoor

>>    Again, this is a faith-based assumption as only IBM knows what's
>> inside their proprietary hardware.  Anyone who's had experiences on
>> their AS400 and RS600 platforms knows how darned proprietary their
>> hardware is.  You're free to believe they changed and they now value the
>> commoner's freedom more than the interests of the governments they
>> serve, of course.  You are *not* free to write falsity and disparage
>> people who hold different opinions, though.  
> I would say buying TALOS where am IBM backdoor is simply fringe 
> speculation

>>> *That TALOS is proprietary closed source hardware  -  which isn't true -
>>> as not being that is the entire point of it.
>>    I repeatedly asked you if there is anyone who has their chips'
>> blueprints, which is a prime condition to be able to call their hardware
>> anything other than proprietary.  You always turned a deaf ear to these
>> requests.  
> Uhh no I didn't, as I have stated (and as you would know had you read 
> the TALOS2 website) the POWER9 datasheets and HDL's are currently under 
> embargo and will be released to the general public when the hardware is 
> - the makers of TALOS 2 have them as they are a member of the OpenPOWER
> foundation.

>>> After the release of POWER9 the board and BMC firmware sources will be
>>> provided,  
>>    Ok, so nothing available *now* from IBM is openhardware.  For a
>> strange reason this is acceptable from IBM/Talos, while it's a disgrace
>> when Purism does the same thing.  Go figure.  
> Again, the public will get the spec sheets and HDL's when the hardware 
> is released - why do you consider this equivalent to purism?

>>> and both the CPU/board and the BMC are owner controlled due to
>>> the absence of hardware enforced code signing.  
>>    ...that you know of, as the available hardware is proprietary and
>> closed-source.  
> No it isn't, which you would know if you read the TALOS2 website.

>>> Full documentation and HDL's will be available for all components  
>>    All right, good.  I'll believe what I will see.

>>> besides the onboard broadcom nics which currently require a firmware
>>> blob  
>>    I wonder why you felt entitled at railing against Purism for having
>> considered equipping their laptops with Nvidia GPUs while it's perfectly
>> OK that TALOS uses a NIC from one of the most opensource unfriendly
>> vendors.  
> A network interface isn't a critical component like a graphics device 
> is, it doesn't control what you see so the device will still be FSF 
> certified.

>>> as there are no open source non-intel gigabit NIC's  
>>    Is not having Intel hardware more important than having opensource
>> components inside a TALOS workstation?  
> Yes it is.

>>> - but the FSF
>>> says that this minor detail doesn't prevent it from receiving RYF
>>> certification as they are behind the POWER-IOMMU and as such are not
>>> capable of doing anything malicious.  
>>    Good.

>>> * That the reason he/purism hasn't made owner controlled hardware is
>>> because it is "too expensive"  
>>    I don't remember writing anything like this.  Quote, please?  
> https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20170906.103659.075c1022.en.html
> "Me - I take it you work for purism....raptor has made a legitimately 
> owner controlled computer - whats stopping you?"
> "You - The steep price."

>>> Purism's "Librem" 15" laptop is $2,000  
>>    False, again:
>> https://puri.sm/shop/librem-15/
>> $1,599.00, now running a rebate to $1,449.00

>>    Compare with this:
>> https://secure.raptorcs.com/content/TL2WK2/purchase.html
>> Talos™ II Secure Workstation    $4,750.00  
> That is the prebuilt cost, not the board/cpu cost.
> You could assemble one for $2.5K which is quite reasonable.

>> - in comparison one can have a
>> TALOS-2 DIY build for $2.6K
>>    Do you realize your "errors" are regularly one-sided, they always play
>> in favour of TALOS and to the detriment of Purism?  How do you expect to
>> be trusted as a neutral source of information, given that you also never
>> provide pointers to third-party documentation to back your claims?  
> What claims?

>>    You're really comparing apples to oranges: Purism sells finished
>> laptops, TALOS sells rack servers and workstations or components/DIY
>> kits.  Be back with your comparisons when TALOS will produce laptops.  
> TALOS isn't a company it is a product, and this isn't about laptops or 
> servers this is about freedom hardware of which both companies claim to 
> be in the market of - thus I compare them.

>>> * That the HAP mode "disabled" ME and makes a purism laptop somehow
>>> equivalent to TALOS when it comes to privacy and security.  
>>    Again, please quote where I wrote such a thing.  I challenged the idea
>> that TALOS products are safe products as privacy and security are
>> concerned just because they are made out of IBM parts, and I challenged
>> the idea they are free from hardware and software that is designed to
>> remotely access the hardware and the OS.  
> Again an open source BMC chip with full documentation is not a backdoor 
> and not at all equivalent to ME/PSP

>>> ME_Cleaner even with HAP mode doesn't disable ME - a black box
>>> supervisor processor is still mandatory for the x86 boot process and is
>>> capable of a variety of dirty tricks so even if one can verify that it
>>> is actually off (difficult...by using an electron microscope perhaps?)  
>>    You just put a protocol analyzer on the chip pins as you operate it.  
> What chip pins? the ME core is entirely integrated in the CPU package.

>>> there are various things that it could have done before powering off.
>>> ME cleaner is nerfing/cleaning, nothing more.  
>>    There are various things that IMM/RSA could do at boot time and at
>> poweroff, too.  Why I am to believe it does nothing or that it only does
>> benign operations?  Because IBM states so?  
> POWER doesn't have IMM/RSA (that is for IBM's very old x86 hardware), it 
> has POWER-BMC which is significantly different and open source.
>>    I am wary of TALOS not because I know their hardware is bugged, but
>> because I cannot understand how can it be that:

>> 1) a never heard before manufacturer runs a crowdfunding effort to
>>     produce a 3,700$ POWER8 workstation;  
> You haven't heard of them but many others have

>> 2) the crowdfunding fails miserably:
>> https://www.crowdsupply.com/raptor-computing-systems/talos-secure-workstation
>> 14% funded
>> 3) shortly after they manage to fund:
>>     *) a $4,750 POWER9 Workstation;
>>     *) a $5,100 POWER9 Rack Mount Development Platform;
>>     *) a $3,950 POWER9 Desktop Development System.

>>    If they had the money, why run a crowdfunding?  
> They didn't have corporate backers before, now they do.

>>    Why invest so much money to deliver three very costly systems that
>> were turned down by the public so little time before?  
> It wasn't "turned down by the public", many people contributed to the 
> crowdfunding campaign despite it being poorly promoted and having no 
> business interest at the time.

>>    I smell something fishy here.  
> Getting corporate backing isn't fishy, IBM wanted to support a POWER 
> workstation project via the OpenPOWER foundation.

>>> * That we should contribute and trust a company that is attempting the
>>> sisyphean task of truly disabling ME.  
>>    Again, you're putting words in my mouth that I never spoke.  Do you
>> know what this shows of *you*, not me?  
> You advertise purism's products time and again and attest that they 
> respect your privacy and security which they don't, thus I assume that 
> you desire people to support them.

>>> Google has many times attempted to get intel to provide a method to
>>> disable ME and remove it from the boot process for their in house
>>> computers and the coreboot laptops they sell, they have not been
>>> successful - thus if a billion dollar company can't pull it off a small
>>> upstart certainly can't.  
>>    I cannot find references, will you please let me read those you have?  
> https://libreboot.org/faq.html
> There have also been many discussions on the coreboot mailinglist about 
> this.