Disabling Intel ME 11 via undocumented mode

Post by ece » Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 5:05 AM UTC

forapurpose wrote: post #127

arca_vorago wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>remote monitoring and control There are opensource ways to do out of band management without it. >consumer benefits. Related tech also helped DRM machines through Trusted Computing alliance. Nobody I knew who was knowledgeable wanted that shit in the first place. It was always edging away consumer control of the platform. DRM is part of the problem here! Same thing with web standards. What annoys me the most about t…

>>remote monitoring and control > There are opensource ways to do out of band management without it. I'd be surprised if there is a cost-effective open source alternative to this requirement: Remotely access and control a computer under any circumstance where it has power and a physical network connection. Solutions like AMT work even if there is no functioning processor or memory, because ME provides its own process…

Post by wmf » Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 5:38 AM UTC

blitmap wrote: post #167

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…

Speaking as a naive outside observer, I am excited with the rumors that Microsoft and Apple will be making a move toward ARM in the nearish future. I don't think ARM is the answer (dear god give us riscv) but I see it as a step in the right direction away from closed systems.

Post by forapurpose » Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 5:49 AM UTC

ece wrote: post #171

forapurpose wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>remote monitoring and control > There are opensource ways to do out of band management without it. I'd be surprised if there is a cost-effective open source alternative to this requirement: Remotely access and control a computer under any circumstance where it has power and a physical network connection. Solutions like AMT work even if there is no functioning processor or memory, because ME provides its own process…

Wouldn't it just take a motherboard maker or two to find an alternative to the PCH, like Nvidia nforce or a VIA chipset. adopt something like openbmc and sell it as an open feature? No intel PCH, no Intel ME. Seems like the Linux kernel is eager to support it: https://lwn.net/Articles/683320/ What happened to 3rd parties making chipsets? Another case of Intel abusing it's monopoly?

Post by ece » Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 6:14 AM UTC

wmf wrote: post #174

ece wrote: post #172

What happened to 3rd party chipsets? Seems like VIA, ALi, SiS, Nvidia nForce, all stopped making them for Intel processors around 2008. If there were alternative chipsets still around, we would see more motherboard makers adopting something like openBMC with an alternative chipset and using it. No Intel PCH, no Intel ME.

If there were alternative chipsets still around, we would see more motherboard makers adopting something like openBMC with an alternative chipset and using it. No we wouldn't. All the chipsets would be subject to the same market forces and thus would converge on similar features, including the ME. Just like how 99% of x86 systems are running UEFI instead of coreboot.

Post by JudasGoat » Tue, Aug 29, 2017, 7:04 AM UTC

glasz wrote: post #151

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've heard the ME is not enabled in macs. for technical/architectural reasons. somebody please enlighten me if that is true.