Disabling Intel ME 11 via undocumented mode • Hacker News Board

Re: Disabling Intel ME 11 via undocumented mode

#221

Post by johnflan » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 8:37 PM UTC

etatoby wrote: post #38

dmitrygr wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed the point. It was added for people with big money. I promise you - it is supported. Just not for you. You need to be backdoorable. They don't

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…

Maybe this was due to a sympathetic engineers actions in Intel?

Re: Disabling Intel ME 11 via undocumented mode

#222

Post by gnufx » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 8:45 PM UTC

bri3d wrote: post #165

pantalaimon wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The last 3 chinese super computers have used home grown FeiTeng RISC processors which were binary compatible to Itanium, but for new models their using OpenSPARC. Where did you get that information? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SW26010 doesn't claim any of that.

China's newest supercomputers are based on Sunway like you linked, but newer FeiTeng models (post-Itanium) were indeed OpenSPARC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FeiTeng_(processor)

I don't understand what the SPARC "front end" actually is, but the Tianhe-2 Top 500 figure comes from Intel processors " rel="nofollow">https://www.top500.org/system/177999>.

Re: Disabling Intel ME 11 via undocumented mode

#223

Post by gnufx » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 8:56 PM UTC

monocasa wrote: post #65

equalunique wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish there were OpenSPARC super computers in the US...

Ehh, SPARC was a great architecture for ancient process nodes, but doesn't really line up with today's needs IMO.

Well, there are half a dozen SPARC systems in the Top 500, most notably " rel="nofollow">https://www.top500.org/system/177232>, with substantial longevity and currently top place in the HPCG benchmark list. They reflect needs in my area, at least. See also Fujitsu's M series?

Re: Disabling Intel ME 11 via undocumented mode

#224

Post by ece » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 4:21 PM UTC

makomk wrote: post #212

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.

I believe Intel stopped releasing the documentation required to make them around that timeframe.

If the EU or US regulators can force Google and Microsoft to unbundle and provide APIs, surely unbundling chipsets fit in the same category. Making chipsets was a successful business for quite a few companies, too bad the FTC didn't force Intel to provide enough documentation, like it mandated the number of PCI-E lanes.

Now if the NSA got to the FTC, that would be different.

Re: Disabling Intel ME 11 via undocumented mode

#225

Post by 4ad » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 6:55 PM UTC

bsder wrote: post #149

4ad wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not?

Register windows and delay slots. These turned out to be not such a great idea.

What, specifically, about register windows and delay slots makes them unsuitable for today's needs?

PS: read my profile description.

Re: Disabling Intel ME 11 via undocumented mode

#226

Post by 4ad » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 6:57 PM UTC

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #117

4ad wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We know that Amazon had Intel create custom chips specially for them, like the E5-2666 v3. So of course Uncle Sam have their own top secret bespoke Intel SKUs.

Amazon buys a significant fraction of the chips produced by Intel. I don't know how many security-sensitive chips the US government needs, but I'd be willing to bet it's a drop in the ocean.

Re: Disabling Intel ME 11 via undocumented mode

#227

Post by rhabarba » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 8:34 AM UTC

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…

> I like x86 but it's not the cpu of the future unless it's open

SPARC has been open for years FYI.

Re: Disabling Intel ME 11 via undocumented mode

#228

Post by monocasa » Sat, Sep 02, 2017, 12:05 AM UTC

4ad wrote: post #225

bsder wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Register windows and delay slots. These turned out to be not such a great idea.

What, specifically, about register windows and delay slots makes them unsuitable for today's needs? PS: read my profile description.

They complicate OoO core design.