Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Disabling Intel ME 11 via undocumented mode

blog.ptsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 228 posts

Re: Disabling Intel ME 11 via undocumented mode

#81

Post by 4ad »

the8472 wrote: post #70
etatoby wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ME itself was added for people with big money. I'm not an engineer experienced in this kind of work, but I fail to see how a company whose core business is manufacturing chips would develop an entire computer (comprising an x86 CPU, its own RAM, MINIX OS, and access to all kinds of I/O) hidden inside each one of their chips and made largely inaccessible to regular users and developers. Unless they are paid very well…

> comprising an x86 CPU The ME runs an Argonaut RISC Core instruction set and leverages a lot of the existing infrastructure in the system since it sits directly in the chipset and can ask the main CPU to do some things on its behalf too.

No, the new ME chip is an x86 running Minix. It's in the article, did you read it?

Re: Disabling Intel ME 11 via undocumented mode

#82

Post by h1b2 »

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #68
trhway wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

basically govt finally learned about ME (like VNC built into CPU) and said "what?! are you kidding!?" and on second breath - "keep it on for everybody else though!"

It's really not just the US government. I'm sure there are many other countries who demand such a feature.

I don't think so. Most of other governments(especially developing nations) don't have a clue about this, or they refuse to accept such concerns, calling it conspiracy theories, as if they have some secret pact to allow US govt. surveillance of their citizens via unofficially if not officially.

Re: Disabling Intel ME 11 via undocumented mode

#83

Post by 4ad »

leeter wrote: post #64
valarauca1 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If ME isn't a backdoor why did Russia and China start efforts to surplant Intel with locally sourced processors (even before US embargo'd Intel from china)

For the same reason the government requires chips made in the US for Classified uses. If a fab is in another country there is always the possibility that the design could be compromised. Even shipping chips internationally can cause this concern as the chips can be swapped out. This isn't exactly a new concept... Russia did this to the US embassy a long while back http://www.cryptomuseum.com/covert/bugs/selectric/

So what chips does the US government use for classified purposes?

Re: Disabling Intel ME 11 via undocumented mode

#85

Post by rsync »

throw2016 wrote: post #12

The more details leak about ME the more shocking it becomes. Why is this accepted in any free democratic society? There can be discussions, there can be debates but in everyday life this is already accepted. And even if one does not want to accept it what are the choices given similar technology is now integrated in other processors? If we accept that computers are essential to operate in modern society then this is…

"There can be discussions, there can be debates ..."

Can there be ?

If ME is part of DRM platforms (and I believe it is) then disabling it is circumvention of a digital copyright mechanism which brings the DMCA into play.

"The lawsuit against 2600 magazine, threats against Professor Edward Felten's team of researchers, and prosecution of the Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov are among the most widely known examples of the DMCA being used to chill speech and research. Bowing to DMCA liability fears, online service providers and bulletin board operators have censored discussions of copy-protection systems, programmers have removed computer security programs from their websites, and students, scientists and security experts have stopped publishing details of their research."[1]

[1] https://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-under-dmca

Re: Disabling Intel ME 11 via undocumented mode

#86

Post by Narishma »

the8472 wrote: post #70
etatoby wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ME itself was added for people with big money. I'm not an engineer experienced in this kind of work, but I fail to see how a company whose core business is manufacturing chips would develop an entire computer (comprising an x86 CPU, its own RAM, MINIX OS, and access to all kinds of I/O) hidden inside each one of their chips and made largely inaccessible to regular users and developers. Unless they are paid very well…

> comprising an x86 CPU The ME runs an Argonaut RISC Core instruction set and leverages a lot of the existing infrastructure in the system since it sits directly in the chipset and can ask the main CPU to do some things on its behalf too.

Old versions did. Newer ones, as mentioned in the article, use a 486-derived low-power core (similar to what was used in Edison/Quark platforms) for the ME.

Re: Disabling Intel ME 11 via undocumented mode

#87

Post by ar-jan »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #79
arca_vorago wrote: post #77

This is why I support Power/MIPS/RISC development going forward. It's just a shame that we allowed intel and amd to both put in cpu backdoors at such an obvious level (I like x86 but it's not the cpu of the future unless it's open). I highly suspect some national security letter type shit is going on in the background, ala Promis and William A. Hamilton who has claimed on Bruce Schneiers blog they (intel agencies) we…

They added it for business reasons for remote monitoring and control since enterprises like it. That's a large part of their sales. It also had consumer benefits. Related tech also helped DRM machines through Trusted Computing alliance. And they probably got defense contracts or payments for selective use by NSA or other organizations. Lots of return on that investment. Lots of reasons unrelated to those you mention.

Then why refuse the possibility to disable it?

Re: Disabling Intel ME 11 via undocumented mode

#88

Post by AsyncAwait »

codedokode wrote: post #51

I wonder if Apple is ok with this. They usually don't like someone's else software running on their machines, especially on such a low level. They will probably negotiate a kill switch for them too.

> I wonder if Apple is ok with this. They usually don't like someone's else software running on their machines.

I think that it's true that they want to have as much control over the experience as possible, but that is more from a perspective of being able to control the (visible parts of) user experience. I'd be pretty surprised if they didn't already knew/had an idea of what was going on with the ME and that there must be some way to disable it, but MacBooks don't receive the amount of attention required for them to care about this low-level detail, which 'doesn't affect' regular customers anyway.

Re: Disabling Intel ME 11 via undocumented mode

#89

Post by INTPenis »

throw2016 wrote: post #12

The more details leak about ME the more shocking it becomes. Why is this accepted in any free democratic society? There can be discussions, there can be debates but in everyday life this is already accepted. And even if one does not want to accept it what are the choices given similar technology is now integrated in other processors? If we accept that computers are essential to operate in modern society then this is…

> Why is this accepted in any free democratic society?

Likely because of good intentions lining the road.

It's my understanding that Intel ME is the basis for an anti-theft and recovery platform for laptops. Which is something that has always been of importance to portable device makers.

How do you think "Find my iPhone" works?

Re: Disabling Intel ME 11 via undocumented mode

#90

Post by mnbghj »

carapace wrote: post #75
dv_dt wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes one wonder if there is a secret legal requirement for this kind of capability.

Years and years ago, when color printer/scanners were fairly new, I tried to scan and print a $5 dollar bill. I was curious. The machine printed out about a third of the image but the rest of what it printed was a very official looking notice to please call the US Treasury. (edit: HP was the manufacturer.)

Likely to do with the EURion constellation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EURion_constellation

Another item of interest may be printer stenography, in which every piece of printed paper, seemingly from every printer, can be traced back to make, model and potentially even the unit used to print it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_steganography

Post reply on HN