Reverse-Engineering the Intel Management Engine • Hacker News Board

Re: Reverse-Engineering the Intel Management Engine

#31

Post by floatboth » Sun, May 14, 2017, 3:42 PM UTC

Namidairo wrote: post #18

floatboth wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> extreme CPUs can't be overclocked You mean non-extreme? > unlocking BCLK, but the overclock is small and unstable that way On desktop Skylake, BCLK can get you to anywhere you want (I run an i5-6400 at 4.5GHz daily, over 4.7 for benchmarks). You're talking about laptops, right?

> On desktop Skylake, BCLK can get you to anywhere you want I thought Intel shut this down with microcode updates.

Microcode can't know anything if all power management is completely disabled :P You need a special firmware build for that: http://overclocking.guide/intel-skylake-non-k-overclocking-b...

Re: Reverse-Engineering the Intel Management Engine

#32

Post by executesorder66 » Sun, May 14, 2017, 5:11 PM UTC

wolfgke wrote: post #28

mmastrac wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respectfully, why would they? The goal here is to find exploits in ME and use them to make Intel chips more end-user friendly. When we were rooting Android devices we sat on a lot of exploits that we believed we could use to give end-users freedom. There were a handful that were bad enough to warrant disclosure [1], but we still offered them as ways for users to control their own devices with a few layers of obfuscat…

> When we were rooting Android devices we sat on a lot of exploits that we believed we could use to give end-users freedom. I often think whether one should really help people who decide to buy locked-down Android devices.

I would gladly buy an open source (including firmware) phone instead. Any you'd like to recommend?

Re: Reverse-Engineering the Intel Management Engine

#33

Post by wolfgke » Sun, May 14, 2017, 5:49 PM UTC

executesorder66 wrote: post #32

wolfgke wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When we were rooting Android devices we sat on a lot of exploits that we believed we could use to give end-users freedom. I often think whether one should really help people who decide to buy locked-down Android devices.

I would gladly buy an open source (including firmware) phone instead. Any you'd like to recommend?

First: mmastrac was explicitly talking about rooting Android devices via an exploit. Since as far as I know there are Android devices available that can be rooted on your own, buying one where an exploit is necessary is a conscious decision by people who don't care about such rooting. So your argument is off my point.

This said: To my knowledge for some mobile phones using a TI Calypso chip, one can flash a free firmware (OsmocomBB):

> https://osmocom.org/projects/baseband/wiki/Phones

Re: Reverse-Engineering the Intel Management Engine

#34

Post by prodmerc » Sun, May 14, 2017, 7:35 PM UTC

tomxor wrote: post #29

prodmerc wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laptop, and extreme CPU. HP and Dell block TPL/TRL adjustment even for XM processors, and HP took it even further with their 1333 MHz limit on RAM. I have 1600 MHz sticks that can run fine at 1866 and probably more (tried with Thaiphoon Burner), so that's really annoying. I don't want an Alienware to get that. And BCLK allows for a 5MHz overclock, which is not much, anything more and the system crashes. Which is real…

Isn't that a bad idea... laptops have significant thermal limitations, things start going wrong quickly when you push beyond those. I've not done any serious overclocking but most seem to stick to desktop and buy more capable cooling systems to make it sustainable.

Aside from heatsink limitations (which can be modded to achieve better cooling), people are pushing their gaming laptops to 80W and beyond, with overclocked GPUs as well.

Some are resorting to dual PSU's to handle the power requirements, so the system boards are capable of handling some insane load.

I myself squeezed another year out of a Core 2 Quad laptop by overclocking everything as much as possible. Temperatures were averaging 90-95 under load, but I didn't care at that point, as I was going to upgrade. It still works :D

Re: Reverse-Engineering the Intel Management Engine

#35

Post by Buge » Sun, May 14, 2017, 8:10 PM UTC

cryptarch wrote: post #22

Buge wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only the people actually subverting the DRM would have legal problems. The people manufacturing the laptop would be fine.

What sections of the law and precedents make you so sure about that?

I tend to take the view that if the law doesn't prevent it, it's ok to do. I don't need legal permission to do something, I just need to avoid things that the law specifically bans.

Re: Reverse-Engineering the Intel Management Engine

#36

Post by marssaxman » Thu, May 18, 2017, 5:20 PM UTC

Buge wrote: post #35

cryptarch wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What sections of the law and precedents make you so sure about that?

I tend to take the view that if the law doesn't prevent it, it's ok to do. I don't need legal permission to do something, I just need to avoid things that the law specifically bans.

If someone with a lot of money has a problem with what you're doing, they'll hire lawyers to discover some way that the law prevents you from doing it. If the ensuing lawsuit, which will bankrupt you regardless of its outcome, doesn't serve as a sufficient warning for anyone else who wants to do whatever it was you did, they'll proceed to buy a law that prevents you from doing it.