BLACK LIST. Adjustable voltage control/turbo ratio limits are locked out due latest Win Update/Bios

Before or later you'll get it.

Be you sure... You risk get a new one (update) right after you got the help from some with the SPI programmer. + Microsoft push 2 main Updates each year. And one thing for sure... Micro$lope won't help you with a new MB.

 

Now, there's a new built-in vulnerability just begging for a hacker to exploit it.

Can you spell "rootkit" boys and girls?

 

I don't think this is gonna be a blanket lock on voltage regulation for all systems, I think that would cause an uproar, I think a lot of people have their CPUs overclocked - basically all enthusiasts that have a K series processor (probably 80%+ of people that own K series CPUs at a guess). My guess is that it will be an optional update of the opt-in variety rather than of the opt-out variety - so I think they'll communicate that as clearly as possible along with the optional updates. There are already security vulnerabilities out there related to the Spectre vulnerability that are not patched by default, and actually have to be "opt-in" by the administrator of the machine, I think in this case there was a number of relatively complicated steps that you need to do in order to activate the protection for this vulnerability (sorry, I can't remember the specific branch or name of it, but it's one of the Spectre vulnerabilities). So I think this voltage regulation vulnerability is gonna come under that same umbrella unless the risk of attack & exploitation of this vulnerability is of a higher level, (which I don't think it is).

 

I think you're probably right about both things. Intel is anything but stupid. They are not going to bite the hand that feeds them. And, I think you're right about overclocking being far more common than the people that say they don't care would like to think. I'd say the people that own unlocked processors that do not overclock them are a small minority. And, I would say the turdbook owners (including those that do not have unlocked processors) that do not undervolt are an exception to the norm, and that includes those that do not care about or think it is somehow a bad thing to overclock. The necessity of undervolting them to minimize their thermal management defects is too glaring to be ignored.

 

Intel has repeatedly said overclocking voids their warranty and they don't recommend it. Using that stance as the basis to answer complaints about overheating and thermal throttling.

Intel doesn't support overclocking, undervolting, or any other tuning "outside the parameter's of processor specifications" - which to Intel means any user interaction that goes against stock (owners - hand's off) OEM configuration and tuning.

During one of the roll-out's I recall Intel saying they see such tuning as coming from a small minority of owners. I don't think that's true either and again I think it is said to fit into Intel's narrative that everything is fine with their products that are overheating and thermal throttling .

Intel responds to i7-7700K high temperature issue, tells owners they shouldn't overclock...
May 5, 2017
https://www.techspot.com/community/...-tells-owners-they-shouldnt-overclock.235062/

Don't overclock Intel's Core i7-7700K
If you wanted overclocking you should have bought AMD
by NICK FARRELL on 08 MAY 2017
https://www.fudzilla.com/news/processors/43583-don-t-overclock-intel-core-i7-7700k

Does the i7 7700k overheating in idle problem is solved ?
CIaco (Customer) asked a question.
May 21, 2017 at 3:45 PM
https://forums.intel.com/s/question...ing-in-idle-problem-is-solved-?language=en_US

 

The systems that have overheating and thermal throttling problems are, by and large, not overclockable. And, without regard to whether they are unlocked or not, they have overheating and thermal throttling problems and need to be undervolted running totally stock because the imbeciles that build them do a half-assed job of it. That isn't Intel's fault. It's the fault of the retards that don't have any pride in the products they sell or the experience of their customers. And, it's partially the fault of the people that pay good money for garbage. The rest of us get to enjoy an equal dose the crap they are willing to put up with. Ignorance is a terrible thing and the rain falls on the just and the unjust. Some aspects of this problem began before BGA filth became status quo. Shoddy engineering and poor quality control existed with laptops before that happened, but it has only gotten worse with lower TDP giving the manufacturers a green light to use that as a lame excuse to cut more corners.

They're talking out of both sides of their mouth. If they did not support it they would not allow it, but it keeps them off the hook for idiots breaking things. And, like most big companies in the world, what they say varies based on the audience. They say whatever they think the audience at a given place and time wants to hear. However, what they do is far more important than what they say (just as it is for all of us). I am thankful for what they do and don't care about what they say. There always has to be a footnote to address the idiots that live among us.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/gaming/overclocking-intel-processors.html

 

The confusing part Intel uses is to appear to support overclocking when the tiny print bottom line says their warranties don't cover user tuning and you have to purchase another warranty policy for coverage - and that is only available on the "K" sku's.

The "K" sku's warranty doesn't support overclocking - tuning by the user outside of OEM vendor tuning except with an additional warranty.

Notice how Intel's true overclocking support is hidden till the last footnote:
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/gaming/overclocking-intel-processors.html

Product and Performance Information
1 - Intel® technologies’ features and benefits depend on system configuration and may require enabled hardware, software, or service activation. Performance varies depending on system configuration. Check with your system manufacturer or retailer or learn more at intel.com.

2 - Software and workloads used in performance tests may have been optimized for performance only on Intel® microprocessors. Performance tests, such as SYSmark* and MobileMark*, are measured using specific computer systems, components, software, operations, and functions. Any change to any of those factors may cause the results to vary. You should consult other information and performance tests to assist you in fully evaluating your contemplated purchases, including the performance of that product when combined with other products. For more information go to www.intel.com/benchmarks.

3 - No product or component can be absolutely secure.

Altering clock frequency or voltage may damage or reduce the useful life of the processor and other system components, and may reduce system stability and performance. Product warranties may not apply if the processor is operated beyond its specifications. Check with the manufacturers of system and components for additional details.

4 - Some features may only be available with the latest version of Intel® Performance Maximizer. Visit downloadcenter.intel.com to download the latest version. Eligible processors include 9th Gen Intel® Core™ i9-9900K, i9-9900KF, i9-9900KS, i7-9700K, i7-9700KF, i5-9600K, i5-9600KF processors, and Intel® Core™ i9-10980XE Extreme Edition, i9-10940X, i9-10920X, and i9-10900X processors.

5 - Intel® Performance Tuning Protection Plan (Intel® PTPP) allows a single replacement for your qualified boxed processor, in addition to your standard 3-year warranty.
[ https://click.intel.com/tuningplan/
For more information about the Performance Tuning Protection Plan see the FAQ.
https://click.intel.com/tuningplan/purchase-a-plan]

Also notice how Intel has recently snuck in this little tidbit - a non-sequitur to the text around it:

Everyone: Intel your products suck and your security game is lame.

Intel: 3 - No product or component can be absolutely secure.

 

Yes, that is what I was referring as as the footnotes for idiots. Supporting something and offering to pay for stupid mistakes are two different things. Veteran overclocker are used to having to take responsibility for their actions. It is primarily the noobs that believe they need the security blanket. The overclocking warranty also applies only to retail CPUs. Tray/OEM bulk SKUs are not eligible. I have never had it and have never needed it. It is super rare to kill one by overclocking.

I would agree with that. The same is true for all tech. The only products that appear to be secure are those the hackers have not burned as many calories on. As AMD gains market share they will become more of a target and exploits will be discovered. Same is true for operating systems.

The real problem is evil people and the lack of extreme and severe consequences for their nonsense. I still think we should implement capital punishment globally for hackers, malware authors and all forms of third-party data collectors (including so-called 'legitimate business'). Exterminate the problem--actually go through with it--and leverage the power of creating widespread fear of extermination for cybercrimes, and we'd all be better off. There would still be a few out there, but most would curb their enthusiasm when they see multiple examples of executions for cybercrimes. Kill 'em all and let God sort them out later. Including the stupid little punks on Discord hacking Ring cameras.

 

That is a load of spinning BS man, you've completely gone off the rails when you say stuff like that.

You are upset with Intel building crappy stuff so you'd rather the problem is solved by murdering people instead of Intel fixing their crappy products? That's crazy talk.

Intel is lying to everyone, spinning things however it benefits them, and hiding behind disclaimers for any blow-back that their actions might cause.

Intel doesn't support overclocking even though they sell products that they advertise as unlocked and ready for overclocking. At the same time Intel call's out such activities as not supported by their 3 year warranty and require additional payment for only a 1 year of warranty for owners that OC - what about the original 3 years warranty listed on the boxed CPU?

If you buy the Intel 1 year OC warranty you lose the other 2 years warranty automatically? - since you've just admitted through participation in their OC warranty that you are OC'ing outside the permitted actions of the original warranty?

In order to get around those Intel disclaimers and still OC you'd need to be lying to Intel when they asked you if you OC'd your CPU during their Q&A for warranty support of your CPU. And, if Intel inspects the returned CPU that's burnt or shows signs of abuse then your warranty claim would be rejected.

So to you a Noob is an honest person that refuses to lie to Intel?

 

No, I don't think so. Seems like you might be overthinking things too much. Overclocking is a privilege, not a right. I don't need a warranty for that and neither does anyone else that is passionate about the sport. I've never wasted my money on that. But, undervolting isn't overclocking. It is a basic necessity for people that do not overclock and buy defective products that are not properly engineered. If the people that built slop bucket laptops from raw components cared about the products they sell and the people that buy them, it wouldn't be as necessary. But, I'm not particularly upset about anything. Overall, I am actually pretty happy and hope to see conditions continue to provide a reason for me to stay happy.

I am also not gullible enough to believe any particular brand of product (hardware or software) is more secure than another. All the calories get burned where the harvest is plentiful. The only reason one product is more secure than another is when that product hasn't been targeted as an orchard filled with ripened low-hanging fruit.

And, I don't really consider it being "off the rails" for taking a very hard-line, iron-fisted and pragmatic view that the world is responsible for the stupidity around cyberthreats because we have been too soft on cybercrime and fostering an environment where cybercrime has all it needs to flourish. We need to stop focusing on plugging holes and focus on killing it at the source (pun intended). This is big money and very lucrative for companies peddling security solutions. Just think how great it would be if cybercrimes were dealt with the same as murder in capital punishment states. The only losers would be the people dumb enough to commit those crimes that end up losing their lives over it and the companies getting wealthy protecting us from them.

It's all a farce, bro... a fairy tale and self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

One problem with bringing in capital punishment for cybercrimes is that where would you draw the line with where capital punishment starts & stops, which crimes are worthy of capital punishment, and then you've got the problem of accidentally killing innocent people for crimes they might not have committed - it's one thing to be locked up for that but if your life is gone you ain't gonna be appealing. It's true it would probably reduce hacking, but it would end up with capital punishment being included for all kinds of petty crimes, and people would basically be living in fear. I don't think that's a great idea, I think there should definitely be a punishment, and the crime should fit the punishment....but I don't think it should be that extreme.

 

That's true, but the possibility of wrongful conviction exists for all crimes, including those where capital punishment is an option. It's really horrible when someone is convicted of a crime they did not commit regardless of what the punishment is. Having relatives that are convicted felons, I know first hand what the lasting implications are. It's a life sentence in some respects even if you are not incarcerated for a long time. I don't think there is a way to guarantee that never happens. At any rate, cybercrimes should receive a penalty that is severe and devastating (be it capital punishment or something else) so as to be a stronger deterrent to those who are not just a bad seed hell-bent on their own self-destruction. These people might be evil, but they're not stupid. I think it is appropriate for anyone contemplating crimes of any kind to live in fear with the knowledge (and precedent) of what the truly horrible and devastating consequences will be dealt to them if they are caught. It needs to be a global effort so there is no place for them to hide. I am sure that some less civilized places would have no hesitation in making the penalty brutal, but there should be no place where they can find refuge from swift and aggressive prosecution with severe consequences that they know will totally ruin their lives. When the crime is deliberate and premeditated, their punishment and destruction should be as well.

 

I have said it before, and I will say it again: Intel loves overclocking! So much so that they do it themselves on their products (see previous article Why Overclocking Matters) By Allen 'Splave' Golibersuch

"Intel also takes overclocking very seriously. It has a dedicated OC lab where technicians track silicon quality, voltage scaling and long-term stress testing results. All this information is used to develop better processors for regular consumers. The company is very supportive of extreme overclockers, because can showcase these processors in a environment without the normal limits of heat and cooling. We can give them an idea of what internal voltages are scaling and how much is too much, which can help them to improve future products."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMD folow Intel as hand in Glove... Offer own OC tool
AMD Ryzen Master Utility for Overclocking Control

Then you have their Guidelines... https://www.amd.com/system/files/documents/ryzen-master-quick-reference-guide.pdf

 

It's too bad AMD doesn't do that. I think it would be in their best interests to do so and it would make their products better.

It's not the same thing. AMD CPUs suck at overclocking and Intel's do not.

But, the fine print is the basically the same. It's not a double-standard. It's a disclaimer that the manufacturer provides no warranty for something that might go wrong that is due to an end-user's actions that are outside of their control. I don't blame Intel or AMD (or any other company) for taking that position. They would be stupid not to. At least Intel is offering an overclocking warranty for retail CPU purchases, available for an additional fee, for those that want it. I personally think it is a waste of money. Overclocking done right doesn't really cause any harm. But, stupidity can.

 

I’ve always had the mentality of a person must be his/her own strongest advocate in all aspects of life.


Unlocked my Razer Blade Pro’s BIOS and turned off SGX. Problem solved, undervolt intact. Community modders have always been any PC’s best asset.

 

Right on. That's the way to do it. If you wait for the OEM to make it right, you'll be waiting forever... just ain't gonna happen, especially if it's a laptop.

 

And there's this: https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/features/inside-intels-secret-overclocking-lab
So much for Intel wanting to remove overclocking & voltage adjustments in the future! Well I didn't think it was likely to be forced upon everyone, and this article just shows that Intel does have an interest in the overclockability of their CPUs - I don't think they'll be removing this feature unless they absolutely have no choice.

 

The article doesn't mention the plundervolt vulnerability nor how they will allow tuning after discovering that inducing instability on the CPU can be exploited.

If undervolting creates instability, then so might any tunable that can create a similar instability.

Intel cares about consumer interest in their products and supports the purchase and use of their products - exploiting those activities for maximum profit.

But, Intel doesn't care enough to cover overclocking in the standard Intel 3 year warranty. In fact evidence of overclocking, delidding, or any other activities outside of normal operation (at Intel's discretion) will void the standard warranty.

Intel offers a "slap in the face" overclocking warranty option, a single 1 year warranty to cover overclocking on their "K" CPU's only. IDK if that means that if you get that 1 year warranty you lose your 3 year warranty?

That's how much Intel "cares"

Edit: Re-reading the article their work is a standard method of parameterizing the limits of a design with special attention to the outcome of adjustments outside the range of normal operation. Essentially that lab are finding the traces of evidence of overclocking to use to forensically determine if a CPU has been overclocked and to be able to detect that use in CPU's. As well as using that data as a reference to test new silicon being developed.

Once Intel builds in the locked voltage settings in new CPU firmware there won't be a way to disable it, if Intel is doing the mitigation correctly. If there is a way to disable the mitigation at the user level then it is also defeatable at the hacker level.

"Update: Intel sent us clarification that the fix for this vulnerability does require locking the voltage in the BIOS. If SGX has not been enabled, or if the CPU voltage is locked at the default values via the mitigation, the system is not vulnerable."
https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/news/plundervolt-new-attack-targets-intels-overclocking-mechanisms

 

I never expected they would. They have overclocking enthusiasts that work there and some in positions of authority. Looks like a great article though. I saw it on my phone this morning and planned to finish reading it on my PC later today. I read the first page on the phone, but I hate doing that and figured I would dive in when I had a respectable way of enjoying it.

They don't necessarily need to do both. Having a switch to enable/disable Plundervolt mitigation would be good enough. People that want to feel secure can turn in on and set tuning aside (either permanently or temporarily), then turn it off when they want to play. If the product they built or purchased is made properly, it won't need to be undervolted or tuned to get the job done. It might run warmer, but as long as it doesn't overheat it will be fine. The real concern is how it's going to affect laptops with already crappy cooling systems (essentially everything, LOL) if they cannot be undervolted to compensate for the lackluster engineering they are almost universally famous for. That is a problem regardless of what brand of CPU or GPU they are running. It's unfortunate that laptops are so poorly engineered and require this to avoid malfunction due to inadequate thermal management.

I wish AMD cared enough to do the same. It is unfortunate that they do not. Their products would be better and would be viewed as more desirable if they did. Their policies are basically the same, and they make sense. They can't and shouldn't be responsible for end-user modifications. I cannot think of any company that is willing to absorb the cost for products that are modified. That would be silly for any company to do that. Not because end user modifications are inherently dangerous, but because some end users are inherently dangerous and screw up everything they touch. Accidents and user errors should never be something anyone except the end user pays for.

Edit: Maybe Plundervolt will be a wake-up call to laptop manufacturers that they won't be able to get away with selling garbage any more. That's way overdue. The thin and light anorexic notebook fanboys are the only ones that stand to lose from design improvements. Can't have it both ways.

 

AMD provides optimal performance tuning as a part of the standard operation of their CPU's so everyone can benefit from the full performance of their CPU.

With AMD CPU's most all of the available performance of the CPU is made available to everyone - not just to enthusiast overclockers like Intel - and AMD continues to optimize the automatic tuning features in each generation.

AMD doesn't limit user available overclocking / tuning to a subset of CPU's like Intel limits overclocking to their premium priced "K" series.

AMD's Ryzen automatic performance tuning has continued to outperform Intel's price / performance and has changed Intel's desktop CPU market share from 90% to 14% here in only 3 years:

AMD closes the year with a new record high @ mindfactory.de
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/eilijx/amd_closes_the_year_with_a_new_record_high/

I've OC'd my 3700x to a daily driver setting of all core 43x + 101 Bclk 4343mhz w/peak 3.25v limit. CB20 stock = 4667, OC = 5227, 12% OC. CB20 5305 14% OC best - the 3700x needs more cooling to be stable @ 4505mhz. My scores are a bit low due to 2x32GB C16 3200 memory instead of best case C14 3200.

It is nice to be able to do that, but the standard out of the box settings were snappy as hell too, and for most people outperforming Intel at a lower price right out of the box is more than enough.

 

Well, that's one way to rationalize it. I don't know that there are any facts to support that theory. And, it ignores the basis for the lack of appeal to many overclocking enthusiasts. It also ignores the fact that typical gamers and casual overclockers are not doing anything special for cooling. So, because you have to do that to get more from Ryzen, the practical effect is there just isn't a whole heck of a lot to work with if you're using air or an ordinary CLC or custom water loop.

While the gains are greater with more exotic cooling, they're not as phenomenal with Ryzen as they are with Intel CPUs. Bottom line is, at least as it looks from where I am sitting, they simply don't have a great deal of capacity for impressive levels of overclocking. It's not much fun to own a product like that if you enjoy overclocking. It doesn't mean the product is no good, only that it's not particularly exciting to work with because it doesn't have much available to work with. It also begs the question of how low their clock speeds would be if they were not doing this "optimizing" thing that you say they are, if they are actually are, and why they don't have the capacity to run at higher clock speeds and gain more than they do. If they could, everyone (including people that enjoy overclocking and having something better than average) would want one. As things are now, seems too boring to get excited about. I know of at least a couple of overclockers in this community that find it a little boring and at least one is going to sell his new Ryzen CPU because it's kind of boring even though he has a better than average sample.

Please understand that I am not saying Ryzen is no good. I'm not saying that at all. I'm only saying they don't respond in a particularly amazing way to overclocking efforts, and because they do not, I have no desire to own one because they are not well suited for my purposes. Paying less for something that works well, but doesn't do what I want it to do, isn't a good value to me. I'd rather pay more to get what I want, or not pay anything and stick with what I already have.

 

There ain’t much headroom for oc’ing AMD chips. And the engineers know that

+ same rules for AMD chips. Outside specs and you’re equal screwed if AMD or Intel bother examining what you did with your chips. And this would be too time consuming and not worthy the job.

 

You did read (in my last post here) that I get a 12% OC improvement over stock on daily driver (4343mhz all core 3.25v) and when I improve cooling I think I can stretch that to 15% OC (4.505mhz all core 3.5v).

That's not the best I've had, but it's far better than the worst I've seen, and considering that OC is in addition to the PBO / auto OC that AMD already uses to surpass Intel's price / performance, that's amazing.

Now with Intel cutting out undervolting - all voltage control? - what's left?

 

That is not decided and it is possible that it will not affect the high performance K and X desktop CPUs and chipsets. Until we see evidence that Intel is going to toss the baby out with the bath water to pacify concerns about "security" at the expense of their customers that demand performance, throwing that speculation out there only looks like a bad effort to create a spin that seems to favor AMD. I doubt it is going to happen across the board. I already have the latest BIOS with this scary-sounding microcode on my X299 Dark and it has had zero impact. In fact, right after applying it I set a few of my highest CPU benchmark scores. I did not lose anything, voltage control or otherwise. There is no reason to believe anyone will need to lose anything unless they opt-in on enabling SGX. Not the end of the world, as a lot of people already have SGX disabled anyhow, and always have had it disabled. Plundervolt being discovered does not change anything for those people, and there is no reason for it to affect them going forward.

Where I anticipate it could possibly be a real problem is the consumer-level BGA notebook garbage where AMD has no real market presence. AMD could make a bigger splash there if they had a mind to do so. We're talking about chips that are lower-performance and either cannot overclock because they are locked; or, cannot because they are installed in platforms that cannot gracefully and capably handle stock clocks, even after undervolting them to the ragged edge of stability.

 

Where do you see any indication that it's "undecided"? Intel as clearly stated the change is in firmware and that it's been rolled out to distribution - Microsoft Windows Update / vendors for BIOS updates. And, no exceptions have been given by Intel.

Intel doesn't mention the "K" sku's are left out of the firmware patch, do they?

 

No definitive information is available and Intel has actually said that they would be allowing motherboard vendors to make some decisions on the implementation. Until we see what that actually looks like, the outcome may vary by vendor. The web contains a lot of speculation about what the implications might be in the worst case scenario. If you can disable SGX (or you have a system that is not affected by Plundervolt because it doesn't support SGX, like X299) then the outcome should not be to automatically assume voltage will be locked. That may not be the case. If you cannot disable SGX, then you got what you paid for: a gimped system controlled by the manufacturer and the beef should be with them for acting like Nazi control freaks. I think it is safe to assume some folks are going to be screwed for that reason, but they already were and just didn't know it.

https://plundervolt.com/

 

Upon just quickly scanning this thread, I'm surprised at the strong-wordedness of everything here. I personally don't see anything wrong with how either Microsoft or Intel have acted here. Not in terms of "ruining" a product.

Intel's CPUs have, are, and still will continue to function exactly as intended. For example, 8th+gen U "15W" CPUs will continue to TurboBoost to beyond 40W for a few seconds before throttling down to 15W. That's the way they were designed. I'm hearing people blaming the lack of undervolt as somehow going to completely "cripple" CPU performance. I think that's wrong. At most, the plundervolt patch will set you back to default performance, i.e. You lose, at most, what you have gained. Your net loss is 0. So why the complaints?

Modifications to processors, including voltage and clock changes aren't a right and were never guaranteed. People shouldn't be complaining when that " opportunity for performance enhancement" is taken away, so much as for someone here to start demanding death sentences. What you are guaranteed, is a processor that will perform as stock rated.

I can't see why the blame is put on Microsoft, either. If you don't like Windows, don't use it. If you are going to complain about other operating systems not having enough program support, well tough, I wonder why? Maybe because the product is good enough for 99% of people. Somebody too mentioned that the loss of undervolt = a loss of functionality = loss of use for him/her. Then don't use your Intel CPU. Alternatives are everywhere. If there isn't an alternative, then I really wonder why.

Throttling due to thermal issues is not a fault of non-undervolted Intel processors, nor is a fault of Microsoft's Windows operating system. It is a fault of OEMs. If a laptop can't perform at its rated CPU TDP limit, whose fault is that?

In short, Intel's provided a patch for a security vulnerability which in no way affects the performance guaranteed from when it was sold to the consumer. Microsoft's implemented this patch because it would be stupid to just let a security vulnerability slip through.

Honestly, 0.001% complaining about an issue that 99.999% of people don't know or care about won't change a thing.

 

Taking away functionality, no matter if originally intended or not is something that people do not take kindly to especially with functionality that has been available for years.

Especially undervolting is something that I have been looking into recently as I would like to extend my laptop's battery life, I guess that is not something that I should see as a dependable solution anymore. Going forward it seems that whatever functionality is available today that is not explicitly mentioned by Intel / Microsoft is not something that we can count on being able to use in the future and that will certainly affect my buying decisions.

 

How do I know if I use SGX or not? I've checked in my BIOS (MSI Z170A), and there's an option associated with SGX - it's either "enabled" / "disabled" / or "software controlled" - it seems to be "software controlled" by default. At least I've got the option to disable SGX, but I have no idea if I use this feature or not?

EDIT: answered my own question with the help of this link ( https://www.tenforums.com/antivirus-firewalls-system-security/101389-sgx-setting-choose-bios.html). Software controlled means that it's currently disabled unless you have "opted-in" by having software run that activates SGX - you'd probably be able to tell because it would need a reboot of the system, and I guess it would 'tell' you before hand what's going on. I also don't have the SGX entry in Device Manager so I know that SGX is not currently enabled nor being used on my machine. For all intents & purposes that means my machine is SGX disabled until I do something that specifically activates it - so I'm not at risk from this plundervolt thing and would require no need for voltage adjustment to be locked automatically by any microcode/BIOS update.

 

Intel "advertised" undervolting in their Extreme Tuning Utility - XTU, and Intel has been offering voltage tuning ability for years in their CPU's.

Intel also allows non-K sku's to voltage tune and that's why so many people are going to miss the voltage tuning features when Intel's failure to make their product secure causes them to disable voltage tuning completely instead of finding a better solution.

Intel has had so many things go wrong, and Intel is losing market share each time another problem is uncovered. This might be the feature removal that sends the most Intel enthusiasts away from Intel and to AMD CPU's, at least until the next Intel glitch is discovered.

 

I have not used XTU in a long time and kind of forgot its functionality - they would have to have a very good fine print with XTU to wind their way out of this if somebody really puts them on the spot.

Maybe people should return their CPU's and/or BGA laptops that are affected - that may cause Intel and Microsoft to take notice!

 

I don't think many people use the SGX feature though so it's not a relevant threat. I also think most systems are SGX disabled by default unless you go into the BIOS to switch it on....one of the reasons for that is that SGX enabled means a portion of the RAM has to be set aside for 'SGX work' so I think that's one reason why most systems come configured with SGX disabled. If SGX is disabled you have nothing to fear from Plundervolt vulnerability...and given most systems are therefore by default protected from this exploit then I don't see Intel/Microsoft/Motherboard Vendors overreacting to this exploit by locking down voltage control on people's equipment, unless it's just an "opt-in" update with a lot of explanation involved to help people decide if they need to opt in or not.

 

FYI...Another user report...

Intel XTU and ThrottleStop no longer working to undervolt Xeon E-2186m after firmware update
http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...lt-xeon-e-2186m-after-firmware-update.831546/

 

People should avoid Bios updates like the plague now.

 

Agree. Sadly, many won't know about this and will jump on a BIOS update just because "newer is always better" in the flawed mentality of the masses.

 

The attitude of trying out everything new because it MIGHT bring some new and great functionality or fixes for issues with no downsides is so out of touch with what really happens in many cases that it is sad that people still do it.

Standard thinking should be to ALWAYS expect problems. NEVER jump on an update immediately and first thoroughly check out what has been posted in forums about the update in question. At worst you will get a useful update a bit later but you might also be spared the crippling effects of updates that severely impact functionality and/or performance of your device.

 

In the last decade it was more of the opposite of "newer is always better" ... Windows 10 updates and Nvidia drivers other things come to mind.

It is sad but I never update OS/drivers of any smooth running machine unless I have to. It shouldn't be like this though.

 

Good decision, things have gotten so complicated that it is unrealistic to expect for new software and drivers to always work with all systems and hardware combinations. On top of that companies feel forced to quickly release band-aid fixes for more or less serious security issues and threats that rob users of fuctionaility and/or performance - just the world we live in these days. As for Windows 10 updates there have been lots of issues with those over the years so while certain things have gotten better in the end there were numerous setbacks on a regular basis. Same with Nvidia if you were looking at less mainstream areas like proper video output levels and refresh rates for example but this is probably inevitable with their strong focus on gaming performance.

 

You never know what will come in addition to so called security patches in bios updates. Often you'll see they screw up other things as etc fan profiles. Or they just mess it up further without a single thought. And the worst part playing the firmware roulette....

Not always you can rollback to the previous better working bios version. Major changes means you'll be locked out and have to live with destoyed machine.

 

HAH. Now I'm glad my laptop is EOL and will never get anymore updates.
Although I suppose MS will still try and screw me over with some microcode patch like their Spectre/Meltdown "fix"

 

Of course. That is how the Redmond Retards roll. EOL products are frequently better than their successors. Any 'fix' that results in the product being impaired directly and immediately is simply not acceptable. Better to leave it vulnerable. A case of the cure being worse than the disease. A cure for diabetes that causes cancer cannot be viewed as a legitimate option and the people suggesting it cannot be taken seriously

 

Are there any real laptops out so far which have this implemented and undervolt not working anymore? If so I am 100% Dell will do it too mostly with the next 1-2 bios updates. Meaning the current/last one might be the last working. Also what if M$ implements this in the Microcode via Windows Update too over time? How to know for sure undervolt still works?

 

Surface Pro owners are already wondering what to do after the most recent update that nuked voltage control.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Surface/comments/f2umwg/throttlestop_of_any_use_after_the_firmware_update/

Some users in this forum thread might want to debate whether a Surface Pro device is a real laptop but that does not matter. They have been officially neutered. Now that voltage control has gone breast side up, users are trying to use some of ThrottleStop's other features to get their laptops to run properly.

This is not a "what if". Just a matter of when. Intel has assigned this security vulnerability a Severity Rating of High.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/security-center/advisory/intel-sa-00289.html

That means Microsoft needs to help out in fixing everyone's laptop, ASAP. Microcode updates for all.

If you value voltage control, think twice before installing any updates.

 

@unclewebb ... this is truly unbelievable. I wonder if Dell decides to push it for all their laptops too or just their business line with Xeon processors. The XP 15 is unusable without undervolt. Is it always possible to revert the microcode dll or would MS implement some mechanism to change that via some certification crap?

 

Is that fix 'just' going to be applicable to devices that are currently using software to control CPU voltage (ie Throttlestop undervolting), or will this affect control of voltage through BIOS? I have a desktop 6700K and overvolt & overclock through the BIOS, I'm thinking any potential Microsoft microcode updates are not going to be preventing that?

 

@Robbo99999 - I think most desktop boards that have voltage control in the BIOS will be fine. No worries yet.

At the moment, I think it is still OK to go back to a previous mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll microcode update file. Going back to a previous firmware version may not be possible on some laptops. I would wait to see some user feedback before being first to update.

On my laptop, I took ownership of the mcupdate file away from Windows and turned off Write control. This should help keep this file safe from being modified.

 

Who will bet with me who will win? The screwed owner or Dell tech support? The Dell G series models is now added into The Black List in first page.

Dell G5 15 5590 BIOS 1.12.1 problem


Following models following same paths as Dell G series models....

Microsoft Surface Pro 7 is now added into The Black List in first page. http://forum.notebookreview.com/threads/the-throttlestop-guide.531329/page-1094#post-10988110

HP Elitebook 840 G6 http://forum.notebookreview.com/thr...r-firmware-update.831546/page-4#post-10983566

 

Dell XPS 7590 has disabled undervolting via Windows update for @Papusan

https://www.reddit.com/r/Dell/comments/fr0j8v/xps_15_7590_psa_undervolting_gone_in_bios_160/

This is a great scheme to obsolete hot running XPS platform while it is still in production.

 

Blocking undervolting for "safeguarding" against the hypothetical exploit due to vulnerability is like amputating your arm because a finger had a benign tumor because it might turn to cancer some day.

 

I praise to God, Dell doesnt find/force a way to update the bios, even with the UEFI encapsulated option set to off, and that M$ doesnt change the way, they load the MC. They could implement the MC in a hidden area or in the kernel directly, so you cant remove/edit the mcupdate_GenuineIntel.dll anymore.

This is madness. I want to decide myself, what I do with the laptop I bought, and under what "security situations" I work with it. I can estimate the "risk" myself. And in this case, there is literally zero risk, if nobody has direct access to my laptop.