Computers & Electronics

Intel Discovers SandForce SF-2281 Controller Can't Do AES-256 Encryption

  • Last Updated:
  • Jun 14th, 2012 6:50 pm
Tags:
None
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 24, 2003
22160 posts
10325 upvotes
Toronto

Intel Discovers SandForce SF-2281 Controller Can't Do AES-256 Encryption

Intel Discovers SandForce SF-2281 Controller Can't Do AES-256 Encryption, Offers Return Program.

As stated on anandtech.com's website:

"Although SandForce's SF-2281 controller has been shipping for well over a year at this point, it took Intel to discover a bug in the controller that prevents it from properly supporting AES-256 encryption. The bug is at the controller level and can't be fixed with a firmware update. AES-128 encryption works perfectly fine as does the drive's standard, un-encrypted operation mode. If you have an Intel SSD 520 and need AES-256 support, Intel has introduced a return program. If you purchased your 520 on or before July 1, 2012 you can contact Intel for a full refund of purchase price. You have to complete the request by October 1, 2012. If you want a Cherryville/SF-2281 drive with proper AES-256 support you'll have to wait a few months for a new spin of the controller it seems."

If it affects Intel drives, it's probably going to have an impact on all sf-2281 based SSDs.
15 replies
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3242 upvotes
Calgary
*sigh*, yet there were Intel fanboys who were blindly running around claiming that the 520 series was far more 'reliable' than anything else on the market, even though it was Intel's first foray into using the LSI/Sandforce chipsets.
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 24, 2003
22160 posts
10325 upvotes
Toronto
Mark77 wrote: *sigh*, yet there were Intel fanboys who were blindly running around claiming that the 520 series was far more 'reliable' than anything else on the market, even though it was Intel's first foray into using the LSI/Sandforce chipsets.

I almost went for the Intel too because I had a couple of OCZ Vertex 2 drives that died within 4 weeks of each other: one was a month-old from RMA and the other was a 1.5 year old drive.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 6, 2003
19713 posts
13577 upvotes
Ottawa
what does AES256 encryption have to do with reliability? I don't see the connection
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 24, 2003
22160 posts
10325 upvotes
Toronto
warpdrive wrote: what does AES256 encryption have to do with reliability? I don't see the connection

I think it's really only relevant to those that want to run 256-bit AES encryption. I'm sure the drives themselvs are quite reliable.

I don't have a TPM in my desktop or netbook which Bitlocker needs so I run TrueCrypt encryption @ 256 bit and AES. I was looking at getting a SF-based Intel drive in order to have reliability and speed.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jul 2, 2001
5602 posts
3999 upvotes
GTA
A refund sounds tempting, i paid $260 for a 120gb one when it first came out, now the 330 drive is half that price :)
.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 3, 2002
1736 posts
45 upvotes
Vancouver
warpdrive wrote: what does AES256 encryption have to do with reliability? I don't see the connection

it doesn't, it's just a bunch of kids, who are tired of hearing intel = reliability, trying to use this to support their own fanboyism
⬅⬇⬆➡
Deal Fanatic
Dec 24, 2007
7084 posts
691 upvotes
Toronto
audit13 wrote: If you have an Intel SSD 520 and need AES-256 support, Intel has introduced a return program.
I hope they don't require you to prove that you actually need 256-bit encryption level.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jul 2, 2001
5602 posts
3999 upvotes
GTA
xalex0 wrote: I hope they don't require you to prove that you actually need 256-bit encryption level.

Heheh so far all they wanted is a receipt and some numbers from the ssd, no proof of actually needing 256bit encryption. But for me this was one of the top 5 reasons i bought this drive.
.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3242 upvotes
Calgary
warpdrive wrote: what does AES256 encryption have to do with reliability? I don't see the connection

People were running around claiming that Intel had spent the past year gaining a 'mastery' of the Sandforce controllers that the other vendors (often plagued with problems, especially during exogenous operating conditions) hadn't.

The discovery of this problem shows that Intel maybe didn't "know" the Sandforce chip as well as they thought...
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Aug 16, 2010
7368 posts
4672 upvotes
Between Countries
Probably the majority of buyers don't encrypt their drives so this shouldn't affect a large group. Though this does erode confidence in Intel just for missing this; seems like a simple thing to test in Q&A.
Banned
User avatar
Feb 15, 2008
26318 posts
3242 upvotes
Calgary
audit13 wrote: I almost went for the Intel too because I had a couple of OCZ Vertex 2 drives that died within 4 weeks of each other: one was a month-old from RMA and the other was a 1.5 year old drive.
Yeah I have nothing against Intel -- they make great products -- and these drives probably aren't an exception. I just took exception to the claims that Intel > *, when there are other OEMs that deliver perfectly good SSDs based on the Marvell and Sandforce chipsets.

Personally I don't see any reason to pay a premium for an Intel versus a Crucial m4 with the Marvell chipset (less risky from a firmware design perspective as the Marvell chipsets don't do data compression). But some folks will insist that the Intel's are the best thing since sliced bread (while accepting paid trips to Intel's offices in the USA).
TodayHello wrote: ...The Banks are smarter than you - they have floors full of people whose job it is to read Mark77 posts...
Deal Fanatic
Nov 17, 2004
7312 posts
1672 upvotes
Toronto
If this happened at OCZ they would just rename AES128 to AES256.
I workout to get big so I can pickup bricks and ****.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 24, 2003
22160 posts
10325 upvotes
Toronto
Mark77 wrote: Yeah I have nothing against Intel -- they make great products -- and these drives probably aren't an exception. I just took exception to the claims that Intel > *, when there are other OEMs that deliver perfectly good SSDs based on the Marvell and Sandforce chipsets.

Personally I don't see any reason to pay a premium for an Intel versus a Crucial m4 with the Marvell chipset (less risky from a firmware design perspective as the Marvell chipsets don't do data compression). But some folks will insist that the Intel's are the best thing since sliced bread (while accepting paid trips to Intel's offices in the USA).
I have nothing against Intel either. I was considering the Intel drive to replace my OCZ drives but I do use 256 bit AES encryption and decided to hold off on my purchase.

My original post was not made to slag Intel or their products in any way. I posted this to let people know this issue exists and Intel is the only company I know of that has publicly admitted that there is a problem with using 256 bit AES encryption.
Member
Jan 21, 2012
388 posts
102 upvotes
I've always thought that Intel gave up on their SSD line ever since they switched to the SandForce controller from their own. Anyone know exactly why they did? (Besides the fact it is faster)
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 22, 2006
2865 posts
296 upvotes
Toronto
I don't own an Intel SSD but I'm glad Intel is stepping up with this return program. Too many companies these days make huge mistakes and turn a blind eye hoping that the majority of consumers don't notice the issues.

Intel gets +1 reputation from me today.

Top