3 ms·

>A simple "off" switch for Intel ME would please a lot of people. But not a corporate security team, of course. It's not that simple.

Quequau 10y ago
Sure it is, it's just that "off" needs to be done by Intel and sold under a different SKU.
- wang_li 10y ago
  It doesn't even need to be that. Expose it on a header on the motherboard so end users can add/remove a jumper. Same as should be in place for the write enable pin on the system's firmware EEPROM. The fact that the end user has no way to prevent firmware updates on most motherboards is a fucking travesty. Businesses can simply tell their employees to leave it enabled or find another job.
  - shitloadofbooks 10y ago
    But when it gets stolen, the thief just switches the jumper.
- ComodoHacker 10y ago
  Hardware "off" would be expensive due to low demand. Soft "off" wouldn't be trusted by those who want it "on".
geofft 10y ago
The needs of a corporate security team are the same as the needs of the free-software-loving individual user: the actual owner of the machine needs control over the computing being done on that machine, and someone who has temporary access to the machine, including an authorized non-owner user with physical access or malware that temporarily gets access (even perhaps root access) to the machine before being removed / before the machine is reimaged, should not be able to subvert the computing freedom of the owner of the machine. A corporate security team wants to make sure that whether ME is on or off, it stays that way and can't be flipped by someone with temporary access or by malware. That's exactly what individual end users want too for their computing freedom.
- ianl_person 10y ago
  I start from the premise that a computer should not betray its user. Users often aren't the owners of their computer. Currently that means the computer may act against the interest of its user. I'd rather have a world where users can trust their computers even at the expense of the owners' control. While a physical ME switch is vulnerable to physical attacks, it does seem like the best approach we have today for minimizing owners' ability to subvert the user.
  - geofft 10y ago
    That's a worthy goal, but so are "A computer should not betray me if someone else is a user of the computer temporarily" and "I should have full freedom to modify a computer I own." And I think you can't satisfy all three at once. You can satisfy "do not betray the user" and "do not betray the owner" if you have a locked-down computer like a Chromebook that only accepts signed firmware and signed OSes. That way, no user of the computer, owner or otherwise, can make permanent changes to it that will compromise other users; guests are protected from the owner just as much as the owner is protected from guests. You can satisfy "do not betray the user" and "have full freedom" if you have a computer with no protections against OS modification (the traditional PC architecture), but that is susceptible to physical attacks, where a user can subvert the owner. And every user needs to subvert the machine afresh in order for the computer not to betray them to the previous user; this is a risky model for things like shared computer labs. You can satisfy "do not betray the owner" and "have full freedom" with an architecture where the owner gets a password/key that unlocks management functions or BIOS reconfiguration, and physical access (short of desoldering) is insufficient to access those functions. I'm a fan of that latter model. Of course, I do have the resources to own a computer of my own for my personal computing, which biases my preferences. There's a good argument for building a more just world for people whose only computers are shared computers (libraries, work-issued laptops, etc.), but I think smartphones are becoming ubiquitous enough that we can expect that everyone will soon have a device they own for their own computing.
    - ianl_person 10y ago
      It's a large topic and you're right, we will have to make trade-offs. For the most part I'm okay with giving up "I should have full freedom to modify a computer I own" in cases where I voluntarily allow others to use it. One possibility I like to think about for PCs is replacing usernames with a root of trust (hash). A trusted ROMed hypervisor downloads the configuration (or loads from cache) and netboots. But ultimately it's bigger than PCs. Embedded computing is becoming pervasive and allows easier monitoring and control of what people can and cannot do. Today people accept that owners or manufacturers can set whatever policy they like even if it's user-hostile.
Dolores12 10y ago
It could be physical switch on the motherboard.

Quequau 10y ago

Sure it is, it's just that "off" needs to be done by Intel and sold under a different SKU.

wang_li 10y ago
It doesn't even need to be that. Expose it on a header on the motherboard so end users can add/remove a jumper. Same as should be in place for the write enable pin on the system's firmware EEPROM. The fact that the end user has no way to prevent firmware updates on most motherboards is a fucking travesty. Businesses can simply tell their employees to leave it enabled or find another job.
- shitloadofbooks 10y ago
  But when it gets stolen, the thief just switches the jumper.
ComodoHacker 10y ago
Hardware "off" would be expensive due to low demand. Soft "off" wouldn't be trusted by those who want it "on".

geofft 10y ago

The needs of a corporate security team are the same as the needs of the free-software-loving individual user: the actual owner of the machine needs control over the computing being done on that machine, and someone who has temporary access to the machine, including an authorized non-owner user with physical access or malware that temporarily gets access (even perhaps root access) to the machine before being removed / before the machine is reimaged, should not be able to subvert the computing freedom of the owner of the machine. A corporate security team wants to make sure that whether ME is on or off, it stays that way and can't be flipped by someone with temporary access or by malware. That's exactly what individual end users want too for their computing freedom.

ianl_person 10y ago
I start from the premise that a computer should not betray its user. Users often aren't the owners of their computer. Currently that means the computer may act against the interest of its user. I'd rather have a world where users can trust their computers even at the expense of the owners' control. While a physical ME switch is vulnerable to physical attacks, it does seem like the best approach we have today for minimizing owners' ability to subvert the user.
- geofft 10y ago
  That's a worthy goal, but so are "A computer should not betray me if someone else is a user of the computer temporarily" and "I should have full freedom to modify a computer I own." And I think you can't satisfy all three at once. You can satisfy "do not betray the user" and "do not betray the owner" if you have a locked-down computer like a Chromebook that only accepts signed firmware and signed OSes. That way, no user of the computer, owner or otherwise, can make permanent changes to it that will compromise other users; guests are protected from the owner just as much as the owner is protected from guests. You can satisfy "do not betray the user" and "have full freedom" if you have a computer with no protections against OS modification (the traditional PC architecture), but that is susceptible to physical attacks, where a user can subvert the owner. And every user needs to subvert the machine afresh in order for the computer not to betray them to the previous user; this is a risky model for things like shared computer labs. You can satisfy "do not betray the owner" and "have full freedom" with an architecture where the owner gets a password/key that unlocks management functions or BIOS reconfiguration, and physical access (short of desoldering) is insufficient to access those functions. I'm a fan of that latter model. Of course, I do have the resources to own a computer of my own for my personal computing, which biases my preferences. There's a good argument for building a more just world for people whose only computers are shared computers (libraries, work-issued laptops, etc.), but I think smartphones are becoming ubiquitous enough that we can expect that everyone will soon have a device they own for their own computing.
  - ianl_person 10y ago
    It's a large topic and you're right, we will have to make trade-offs. For the most part I'm okay with giving up "I should have full freedom to modify a computer I own" in cases where I voluntarily allow others to use it. One possibility I like to think about for PCs is replacing usernames with a root of trust (hash). A trusted ROMed hypervisor downloads the configuration (or loads from cache) and netboots. But ultimately it's bigger than PCs. Embedded computing is becoming pervasive and allows easier monitoring and control of what people can and cannot do. Today people accept that owners or manufacturers can set whatever policy they like even if it's user-hostile.

Dolores12 10y ago

It could be physical switch on the motherboard.