6 ms·

Its important to note, that Intel has a VERY strong incentive to downplay the seriousness of this problem. Other sources have indicated that its possible on any

by throwaway2048 10y ago

Its important to note, that Intel has a VERY strong incentive to downplay the seriousness of this problem. Other sources have indicated that its possible on any post 2008 Intel system, its just not possible remotely. Since we don't know the exact nature of this exploit, things are extremely dangerous for ALL Intel systems right now.

wyldfire 10y ago
Seems like it could be a risk to the GCP/AWSs of the world.
- wmf 10y ago
  AFAIK Xeons don't have AMT/ISM/SBT and thus aren't affected. Servers may be affected by the absolute shit firmware living in their Aspeed BMCs, however.
  - pquerna 10y ago
    Many Xeon SKUs include the Management Engine, which at times has seemed to share many of the features of AMT/SBT/etc, but its unclear on the exact attack vector for this vulnerability. Having said that, the ME is so opaque, the same type of vulnerability could easily exist.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    There are Xeons with AMT, at least the 3400, possibly more. edit: E3-1200 as well, same kind of application, single CPU workstation chip.
- btown 10y ago
  Both GCP/AWS already probably have (or had, if they were alerted before public disclosure) security teams probing their internal systems to see if they're vulnerable, and install firmware patches. The danger is more medium-to-large organizations whose internal clouds and desktop systems are impossible to patch at scale.
- dom0 10y ago
  If remote management is used for servers, it's normally IPMI with a completely separate baseboard controller that has its own NIC connected to a physically separate network [although some boards cheap out on that, notably older INTEL boards, where the separate NIC is an option you have to buy]. No mainstream (2-way) server has AMT, anyway.
kakarot 10y ago
I'm trying to find out if this applies to enthusiast processors that lack vPro. I purchased my chip with this in mind. Any information would be appreciated. https://www.orwell1984.today/no_vpro_for_me.html https://www.orwell1984.today/no_vpro_for_me.html
- wmf 10y ago
  "This vulnerability does not exist on Intel-based consumer PCs."
  - kakarot 10y ago
    "There are several features that AMT provides that are present in consumer systems even though the ‘technology’ isn’t there. This is one of the arguments that SemiAccurate has had with Intel security personnel over the years, we have begged them to offer a SKU without the AMT hardware for just this very reason. Intel didn’t, the pressure to lock corporate customers in to their silicon was too high." Intel is playing this down heavily. This seems to be locally exploitable on consumer chips. Correct me if that is wrong, please. EDIT: I'm not one to give a shit about downvotes, but it would be nice if someone could actually respond to me with a legitimate retort instead of trying to bury this post. I am asking to be proved wrong for my own sanity. Let's be mature about this.
    - wmf 10y ago
      Basically you're asking us to prove a negative about undocumented proprietary firmware. Someone could spend years fully reverse-engineering ME firmware to prove these theories wrong, and then people would just say "but what about version N+1?"
      - kakarot 10y ago
        Not really. The evidence currently points to all basically all commercial Intel chips in the last ~10 years being vulnerable to this. In addition to correcting you about Intel's blatant lie, I was asking if anyone more qualified than me could confirm or deny whether it affects certain enthusiast chips that seem to lack certain vPro features. My question was not about if consumer chips are affected, because they are if they have the ME engine. However, the enthusiast chips I reference supposedly do not even have a functioning ME system to reverse-engineer in the first place. Asking for confirmation of such by a qualified individual is reasonable and answerable.

wyldfire 10y ago

Seems like it could be a risk to the GCP/AWSs of the world.

wmf 10y ago
AFAIK Xeons don't have AMT/ISM/SBT and thus aren't affected. Servers may be affected by the absolute shit firmware living in their Aspeed BMCs, however.
- pquerna 10y ago
  Many Xeon SKUs include the Management Engine, which at times has seemed to share many of the features of AMT/SBT/etc, but its unclear on the exact attack vector for this vulnerability. Having said that, the ME is so opaque, the same type of vulnerability could easily exist.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  There are Xeons with AMT, at least the 3400, possibly more. edit: E3-1200 as well, same kind of application, single CPU workstation chip.
btown 10y ago
Both GCP/AWS already probably have (or had, if they were alerted before public disclosure) security teams probing their internal systems to see if they're vulnerable, and install firmware patches. The danger is more medium-to-large organizations whose internal clouds and desktop systems are impossible to patch at scale.
dom0 10y ago
If remote management is used for servers, it's normally IPMI with a completely separate baseboard controller that has its own NIC connected to a physically separate network [although some boards cheap out on that, notably older INTEL boards, where the separate NIC is an option you have to buy]. No mainstream (2-way) server has AMT, anyway.

kakarot 10y ago

I'm trying to find out if this applies to enthusiast processors that lack vPro. I purchased my chip with this in mind. Any information would be appreciated. https://www.orwell1984.today/no_vpro_for_me.html https://www.orwell1984.today/no_vpro_for_me.html

wmf 10y ago
"This vulnerability does not exist on Intel-based consumer PCs."
- kakarot 10y ago
  "There are several features that AMT provides that are present in consumer systems even though the ‘technology’ isn’t there. This is one of the arguments that SemiAccurate has had with Intel security personnel over the years, we have begged them to offer a SKU without the AMT hardware for just this very reason. Intel didn’t, the pressure to lock corporate customers in to their silicon was too high." Intel is playing this down heavily. This seems to be locally exploitable on consumer chips. Correct me if that is wrong, please. EDIT: I'm not one to give a shit about downvotes, but it would be nice if someone could actually respond to me with a legitimate retort instead of trying to bury this post. I am asking to be proved wrong for my own sanity. Let's be mature about this.
  - wmf 10y ago
    Basically you're asking us to prove a negative about undocumented proprietary firmware. Someone could spend years fully reverse-engineering ME firmware to prove these theories wrong, and then people would just say "but what about version N+1?"
    - kakarot 10y ago
      Not really. The evidence currently points to all basically all commercial Intel chips in the last ~10 years being vulnerable to this. In addition to correcting you about Intel's blatant lie, I was asking if anyone more qualified than me could confirm or deny whether it affects certain enthusiast chips that seem to lack certain vPro features. My question was not about if consumer chips are affected, because they are if they have the ME engine. However, the enthusiast chips I reference supposedly do not even have a functioning ME system to reverse-engineer in the first place. Asking for confirmation of such by a qualified individual is reasonable and answerable.