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

How Purism avoids Intel’s Active Management Technology

puri.sm

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 121 posts

Re: How Purism avoids Intel’s Active Management Technology

#111

Post by yvdriess »

Cieplak wrote: post #93

Clearly there’s demand for an Intel product with these features absent from the platform controller hub. I acknowledge that hardware products take years to develop, and they already have a lot on their plate. Perhaps Intel doesn’t care about consumer whims, but clearly there’s demand from companies like Google. I’m just generally surprised at the lack of public-facing responses from Intel’s leadership around this and…

The remote access features are probably removed or disabled via microcode changes. As Purism referred to sourcing recent CPUs without vPro, they are either directly or indirectly getting those kind of vPro-disabled variants.

Re: How Purism avoids Intel’s Active Management Technology

#112

Post by boring_twenties »

LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #85
boring_twenties wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recent (1-2 years?) AMD BIOS supports disabling the Platform Security Processor (their ME equivalent). I haven't been able to figure out what exactly this means, but it does seem to be disabled after system initialization. Kind of like Intel's HAP bit, except user-settable.

I found [1] https://www.igorslab.de/en/inside-amd-bios-what-is-really-hi... to be a good explanation. Essentially it's the crank which brings up the rest of the SOC. The other functions are optional, but no booting possible without it.

Thanks for that! This is quite relevant to me right now as I'm thinking about my next upgrade. Obviously, I'd prefer to buy AMD, especially if this disable switch is legit. But grotesquely, I'm still considering going with Intel, because at least I know I can use me_cleaner there, and more or less understand exactly what it does. Hopefully this document will clear some of that up.

Re: How Purism avoids Intel’s Active Management Technology

#113

Post by [deleted] »

searchableguy wrote: post #75
numpad0 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel TrackPoint and Trackpad both present at the same time is ugly But FWIW the inspiration for the red cap is from pickled plum in bento boxes[0] so [0]: https://images.app.goo.gl/Xf3kHjv9JVMdeXA77

> But FWIW the inspiration for the red cap is from pickled plum in bento boxes I get now why so many anime people love thinkpads.

[deleted]

Re: How Purism avoids Intel’s Active Management Technology

#114

Post by Eldandan »

numpad0 wrote: post #72
Godel_unicode wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trackpoint is ugly. It's a giant throwback pimple in the middle of the keyboard, which there's no way to get around looking at all the time. Thinkpads being ugly is kind of their thing, so it doesn't surprise me that lots of Thinkpad people don't mind it or even see it as a plus, but to me seeing a trackpoint is like seeing a floppy drive. I used one for years, and I'm really happy that trackpads have gotten good…

I feel TrackPoint and Trackpad both present at the same time is ugly But FWIW the inspiration for the red cap is from pickled plum in bento boxes[0] so [0]: https://images.app.goo.gl/Xf3kHjv9JVMdeXA77

Not to mention the "old 'bento box' models where the screen release lock also allows you to lift up the keyboard to access all of the internals."

https://imgur.com/a/sbMiIRG https://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=131119

Re: How Purism avoids Intel’s Active Management Technology

#115

Post by scott00 »

na85 wrote: post #103
threatripper wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absence of evidence is not the evidence for absence. If the backdoor exists you will need to know a secret to open it. Currently, the public obviously doesn't know this secret or the doors would be wide open for virtually anybody. Because we don't know the secret key, we cannot open them to prove that they exist. So we don't know for sure if the backdoors exist. But the way the IME is designed and handled makes it po…

>So we don't know for sure if the backdoors exist Doesn't the NSA_High_Assurance_Platform bit or whatever it's called pretty much prove there's a backdoor? edit: Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#%22Hig... Why would the NSA demand such a feature if they didn't foresee even a potential vulnerability there?

The NSA doesn't need to know a backdoor exists in order to worry about one. The ME is infrequently exercised code with a large attack surface and highly privileged access. If you are security conscious and don't need the functionality it's quite logical to want to turn it off, whether you're the NSA or anybody else.

Re: How Purism avoids Intel’s Active Management Technology

#116

Post by NikolaNovak »

sscarduzio wrote: post #108
NikolaNovak wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly one of those "acquired tastes", though like with 3.5mm elimination, I don't understand the sheer vitriol against it by those who happen not to use it. Why do you care? If everything else in Thinkpad appealed to you, why would an eminently ignorable feature be such a HUGE ("single reason") deal breaker? In my mind, either a) There are other reasons and this is a convenient conscious or subconscious scap…

Not much against nipple itself, but what about the TWO GIANT physical clicky buttons under the spacebar? - extra accidental clicks - steal of space from the touchpad - more moving parts - visual clutter - undermine chassis rigidity - add weight - With touchscreen and a good touchpad, there's nothing that justifies its existence. Maybe I have a fixation for minimalism too.

Oh yeah, they tried removing those in the _40 series (T440, T540, etc) a few generations yet. That went over well! :P

As I frequently mention in this context: You haven't lived until you've seen a highly paid security architect slam their laptop repeatedly in front of the client in frustration :P.

So they put them back in the _50 series and onward :).

Seriously, the generation was reviled and it was a complete rebellion to put them back. And with good reason.

The two "GIANT" (regular sized, but whatever:) physical clicky buttons are there for people who like physical clicky buttons. Which is a large portion of user base using ThinkPads / Lattitude / Elitebooks. These laptops are tools of our trade and we use them at home at work on airplane in coffee shop in the park in the backyard in the bedroom everywhere. We have a fixation for functionality, for positive action and reliable feedback, not design/minimalism.

I have no fantasies that we'll agree, but wanted to provide a perspective to enhance understanding :)

Edit/Update upon thinking: I think indeed there's a market/product for both: people / companies who prefer minimalism (Apple laptops are really the sexiest epitomes of that design aspiration and I'll agree if sleek sexiness is an important criteria, nothing beats them:). And for people / companies who prefer modularity / functionality / expandability / power... I'd love to say that ThinkPads cater to that audience, but in reality they're becoming more like MacBooks - minimalism is clearly winning in the industry, even if there's a backlash in the hardcore but tiny communities :-/

At any rate, it seems we went from "Trackpoint is the single reason against Thinkpad" to "nothing much against trackpoint", which answers my original question I suppose.

Re: How Purism avoids Intel’s Active Management Technology

#117

Post by NikolaNovak »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #58
NikolaNovak wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly one of those "acquired tastes", though like with 3.5mm elimination, I don't understand the sheer vitriol against it by those who happen not to use it. Why do you care? If everything else in Thinkpad appealed to you, why would an eminently ignorable feature be such a HUGE ("single reason") deal breaker? In my mind, either a) There are other reasons and this is a convenient conscious or subconscious scap…

The trackpoint is ugly. It's a giant throwback pimple in the middle of the keyboard, which there's no way to get around looking at all the time. Thinkpads being ugly is kind of their thing, so it doesn't surprise me that lots of Thinkpad people don't mind it or even see it as a plus, but to me seeing a trackpoint is like seeing a floppy drive. I used one for years, and I'm really happy that trackpads have gotten good…

FWIW - I think most of us who enjoy Thinkpads don't "see ugliness as a plus". Rather, we think it has a classic look, rather than fashionably sexy. And we do enjoy using the TrackPoint :-)

Re: How Purism avoids Intel’s Active Management Technology

#118

Post by yencabulator »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #97
kybernetikos wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no better way of controlling a mouse when you have limited elbow room. It also keeps your hands nearer the keys.

> no better way Well that's just, like, your opinion.

And "The trackpoint is ugly" is yours. At least he's talking about something relevant: usability. If you refuse to use a keyboard because it's "ugly", well, there's Apple for that.

Re: How Purism avoids Intel’s Active Management Technology

#119

Post by yencabulator »

kelnos wrote: post #9

> We choose Intel CPUs that do not have vPro The Wikipedia article they link about vPro says: > Intel vPro technology ... [includes] VT-x, VT-d... Does this mean that Purism hardware won't support virtualization extensions? Seems like that would be a big downside, and would make it a non-starter for a lot of people (including myself).

vPro is a marketing label that can be applied to CPUs with all of the enumerated features. Those features can be present without having all of them present.

Also, Intel sucks at marketing.

Re: How Purism avoids Intel’s Active Management Technology

#120

Post by yencabulator »

rzzzt wrote: post #38
closeparen wrote: post #28

I hear a lot about disabling the management engines... what about activating them for yourself?

Your computer could run Linux or Doom even while it's off!

*One of your computers could run Linux or Doom while the other one is off.
Post reply on HN