18 ms·
How to hack a turned-off computer, or running unsigned code in Intel ME
- Fej 9y agoThey don't mention how easy or difficult this exploit is to carry out... so I'm betting that it's extremely difficult and will affect practically no one. That's not to say that Intel ME isn't an awful idea, just that we shouldn't necessarily panic yet.
- yeahsure 9y agoI would rather be easily exploitable so people realize how bad this is. The alternative is only governments/powerful corporations exploiting it forever without repercussions.
- nol13 9y agouh oh
- m1el 9y agoI would be glad if this made Intel reconsider their stance on enforcing untrustable CPU features onto users. CPUs aren't cheap! Just give your customers full control over the product!
- api 9y ago"Just give your customers full control over the product!" Ownership is so 20th century.
- sounds 9y agoEverything that is old is new again. AT&T used to claim anyone who attached an unapproved telephone was a criminal: http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/471/hout/telecomHistory/ http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/471/hout/telecomHistor... "Freed" slaves in the US used to only get to rent land on which to live: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharecropping#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharecropping#United_States Being in control of your own destiny isn't actually that common, historically.
- phkahler 9y agoWe all rent the land on which we live. Try not paying your property taxes. In most states.
- nine_k 9y agoBut you can also can rent land on which to farm, to build a factory, or a skyscraper, without living on that land.
- narrator 9y ago...except for Nevada when for a few years they briefly allowed people to get allodial title.
- ekianjo 9y agothats almost a worldwide exception
- rxhernandez 9y agoI hear Mexico allows you to actually own land.
- ZenoArrow 9y agoI don't know if this counts or not, but in the UK there are the concepts of freehold and leasehold. Leasehold requires payment of rent on land (to a landlord), but freehold does not. I believe that technically all land is owned by the crown, but I don't think they tax based on land ownership.
- somebodynew 9y ago...that expired upon death and could not be passed to heirs.
- fujiters 9y agoStill pretty cool.
- phkahler 9y agoThat was the most depressing comment I've ever seen here.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoAnd yet it is at the very core of most of the issues in our industry. The cloud. Shitty SaaS companies. DRM. Right to Repair. The War on General-Purpose Computing. Software freedom. All of that is about who is the owner of a computing device.
- phkahler 9y agoThat's exactly why it's so depressing. As the cost of living should be going down, everyone is trying to extract rents and take away the individuals freedom.
- Joking_Phantom 9y agoActually they are cheap - the reason why a significant amount of on chip resources can be assembled into the IME on all of Intel's chipsets is because IC process technology has advanced by many orders of magnitude. The Pentium 4 represented the edge of consumer grade CPUs 10 years ago, and it was around that time we reached practical limits on frequency. As hardware manufacturing shifted towards more cores and caches, SoC ICs became the standard. Slapping a cheap, low power system of CPU and memory on every chipset is easy, cheap and natural. With extra hardware being cheap and easy, Intel put 2 and 2 together and tried to monetize this by offering businesses extra capabilities as a standard. Obviously this introduces new attack vectors, and the opaque nature of this new "standard" feature attracts attention from all sides.
- digi_owl 9y agoIndeed. Moore's law is an observation on the transistor size on a die, how they halved in size every x months. This allows one to do either more complex chips (more features etc), cheaper chips (more chips pr die means a higher yeild of functioning chips) or faster chips (lower voltage, less heat, higher clock). But the clock increase have stopped, and Intel is loath to lower chip prices without some serious competition forcing them, so they keep coming up with new features to justify the price as they shrink the transistors.
- otakucode 9y agoYou don't hide features you implemented in order to sell your product to customers.
- fao_ 9y agoWhy not? It's worked so far >_>
- AceJohnny2 9y agoThey're "packaged" "solutions"!
- oliwarner 9y agoThat's Intel's whole chip business model. Make a high end part and selectively disable features to form cheaper SKUs. It's also part of the chip binning process, allowing you to sell near-100% of what you make. Nvidia and AMD do this too.
- milcron 9y ago"Just give your customers full control over the product!" Check out the Talos II, the first owner-controllable workstation in quite a while. https://raptorcs.com/ https://raptorcs.com/
- tomatoman 9y agoWhat do you mean by that?
- jakeogh 9y agohttps://raptorcs.com/content/TL2WK2/intro.html https://raptorcs.com/content/TL2WK2/intro.html
- gcb0 9y agonot even a price yet.
- selectodude 9y agoThere’s pricing when you click preorder. It’s like $6500.
- efficax 9y agoHasn’t this been in preorder for years?
- FooHentai 9y agoIt's almost as if there's some mysterious third factor at play, above and beyond giving your customers what they want, and above making a profit. What could it be? This mysterious additional factor.. What could make the US company with the biggest CPU market share in the world possibly want to put an omnipresent overlord control chip onboard every processor it ships? It's almost like there's some kind of outside force at play, but that's a crazy idea. There's No Simple Answer here, for sure. What indeed, such a mystery! It's a mystery, I tells ya!
- jwcacces 9y agoYou're not Intel's customer. Dell, Lenovo, Amazon et al. are. And they want management systems, because the large companies who buy from those guys also want management systems. This isn't some super conspiracy, (even if it's something the three letter organizations try to take advantage of it) this is pure business. Pwning a computer across the internet that your dumbass sales manager left on a train is a feature.
- KGIII 9y agoThe 'best' part about it is that they don't even have to leave it on a train. This is progress!
- wolco 9y agoYou are intel's customer when those retail stores try to sell a computer to yourself. They usually include the cpu details and can help a customer make a decision. That's why the intel inside campaign was so successful.
- userbinator 9y agoKeyword being "was". Unfortunately most PC (and Mac, to an even greater extent) buyers today probably barely know who makes the CPU in what they're buying.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
- minusSeven 9y agoAhahahahahahahaahahahhahaahh huhuhu -Intel probably
- dang 9y agoPlease don't do this here.
- et-al 9y agoAre the specifics of this published anywhere else, or does the public have to wait until Dec 4, 2017?
- bri3d 9y agoFinally. Everyone knew it was just a matter of time - now hopefully we can see some change.
- sounds 9y agoIn case you haven't already used the following, please note that the NSA had an undocumented "backdoor" included which "disables" the ME. (Man, oh man, I wish I was making this stuff up.) http://blog.ptsecurity.com/2017/08/disabling-intel-me.html http://blog.ptsecurity.com/2017/08/disabling-intel-me.html I put quotes around "disables" because the ME is not fully disabled. The blog's analysis does show how it is in a "safe" state, i.e. forced to ignore the outside world very early in its code path. Also, not likely to brick your computer, assuming unscrewing your case and using a SPI flash programmer hasn't already bricked your computer. Edit: "backdoor" in quotes too.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- cyphar 9y agoYou can do this fairly easily with me_cleaner[1] which also does a lot of other disarming of ME. [1]: https://github.com/corna/me_cleaner https://github.com/corna/me_cleaner
- sounds 9y agoI found the relevant flags: --soft-disable-only and --soft-disable https://github.com/corna/me_cleaner/commit/d5705b62f802fdf1cf16b6a007946e7e775f2c63 https://github.com/corna/me_cleaner/commit/d5705b62f802fdf1c...
- loeg 9y agoYou should also put "backdoor" in quotes. It's not a backdoor in any meaningful sense; it's just an undocumented setting that allows them to (mostly) disable the ME on their machines.
- std_throwaway 9y agoIt's quite the opposite of a backdoor. It's "locking" their own backdoor that probably stands wide open on everbody elses house.
- trizic 9y agoMaybe this could be used disable Intel ME when other methods do not work?
- bluesroo 9y agoWow this sounds huge. I remember people speculating about this since it came to light... But people always talked about it like it was a vague hypothetical that only scary 3-letter agencies would figure out. I'm curious to see what kind of access they need in order to actually make use of this. If they somehow don't need physical access this is going to be nuts.
- EasyAI 9y agoYeah I’m really curious about that too, and I wish the guys would at least give that much detail but I guess they’d prefer to hype up the reveal at their event instead. I want to believe it requires physical access... For now I find comfort only in knowing that it’s a skylake+ vulnerability, and just continue to hope it doesn’t work down to other models as they learn more about the internal workings of the ME.
- davidw 9y ago> modified MINIX as an operating system Say what?! Anyone know more about this? MINIX is neat in some ways, but I never thought of it as a production ready OS.
- edaemon 9y agoIntel ME has the MINIX license copyright message in it: https://twitter.com/qrs/status/857342798420422657 https://twitter.com/qrs/status/857342798420422657 Positive Technologies, the people doing the presentation in the OP, have this blog entry about earlier findings surrounding Intel ME (some of the language from this entry is used in OP): http://blog.ptsecurity.com/2017/08/disabling-intel-me.html http://blog.ptsecurity.com/2017/08/disabling-intel-me.html
- otakucode 9y agoI know I watched a presentation on YouTube from a hacking convention from the same folks who figured out how to disable the IME, but after 15 minutes of searching YouTube I can not find it at all. If you come across it, it's a good watch.
- Keyframe 9y agoHaven't heard about MINIX since the Linus and Tanenbaum debate!
- KGIII 9y agoIt still exists and is still getting regular updates. I have a VM image that I sometimes play with. For what it is, I've found it functional and stable. I'm not really qualified to offer much more of an opinion than that. Anyhow, grab your favorite VM software and give it a spin. There have been loads of changes to it. I do mean a lot of changes. You can even use Firefox with it. It's on my to-do list to try it on bare metal. I understand it isn't too bad with regards to hardware compatibility. But, I've never tried it outside of a VM, with the exception of a friend having it on bare metal many years ago.
- na85 9y agoI actually really hope that this is exploitable remotely and causes a massive global problem. Maybe then we'll see companies that take security seriously, thinking twice before they include things like ME in their products.
- k_sze 9y agoI'm afraid this won't be enough. If it doesn't hurt the shareholders' and creditors' bottom line, corporate behavior is unlikely to change. You need an event like the government banning Intel ME from their agencies, or the shareholders' bank accounts getting hacked due to this bug. I'm not suggesting that anybody do that - that's illegal - I'm just cynical about wealthy people in those positions.
- Terr_ 9y agoRight -- there are so many problems with boil down to a broken chain of liability. I mean, just look at the Equifax blow-up, and how companies have rebranded "someone stole from us because of our shitty authentication" into "someone stole your identity, good luck with that."
- ysleepy 9y ago"Wouldn't it be kind of great if millions of people were secretly running minix, it would finally go mainstream!" The engineers probably thought something like this when deciding to use minix. Now it might achieve the opposite result by associating it with a worst-case scenario of computing freedom and security.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y agoThis sounds like an announcement of an announcement, which generally is frowned upon on HN -- though this might merit alerting people.
- insulanus 9y agoDon't care. This is so big, I'm happy to be alerted a little early.
- 0x0 9y agoEverything is terrible and everything is going to crash and burn. :-/
- Varcht 9y agoNo argument here
- sillysaurus3 9y agoFinally, some hard evidence that BadBIOS was possible. (BadBIOS was lax on details, but people were remarkably resistant to the idea that it was even possible in theory.)
- lawnchair_larry 9y agoNobody was resistant to the idea of it being possible, they were resistant to the actual claim being made, which was based on the reasons that the victim cited for believing that they were infected. This lends no further credibility to that claim.
- e12e 9y agoOT: Sweet Jesus! 1 319 gbp for early registration? It's not exactly accessible to students and amateur Hackers, is it? :-(
- driverdan 9y agoNope. Blackhat is for corporate lackeys attending on the company dime. It's disappointing how many major exploits get announced there rather than more traditional hacker confs.
- jorvi 9y agoWhat I don't understand is why AMD doesn't jump into this niche market: just include a switch on their version of the ME (forgot name) that turns it off. Corporate clients still get their ME if they need it and AMD catches the security-focussed market. This would also mean lucrative orders from non-US governments.
- milcron 9y ago> This would also mean lucrative orders from non-US governments. Assuming those governments trust AMD's switch. Every government with the power to do so is looking into domestic chip manufacture.
- zanny 9y agoBecause a lot of three letter agencies demand these hardware backdoors exist, and AMD has no will to fight them on it. They announced intent when they released Ryzen to "look into" disabling their ME (they call it the PSP), and then six months later made a backroom comment that it is never going to happen.
- IntelMiner 9y agoReddit put forward the idea when Ryzen was about to launch. An AMD engineer said he'd "see what could be done" or something to that effect A few months later he admitted it wasn't going to happen, unfortunately
- IncRnd 9y agoThere is no ME, if the ME can be turned off by a user. Users are not the real customers of a processor company, where their real customers buy more than 1 or 2 i7s.
- breatheoften 9y agoThis is the kind of thing that will cause Apple to switch to internally designed arm chips for their Mac line with great alacrity. One could argue that it’s surprising they haven’t already.
- loeg 9y agoPerformance still matters. They're getting closer, but they aren't there.
- lloeki 9y ago> "baseline score of 4400 (which is the score of an Intel Core i7-6600U" https://twitter.com/codinghorror/status/907711853530300416 https://twitter.com/codinghorror/status/907711853530300416 It rips my current computer apart, which is perfectly decent: https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/4107961?baseline=3967901 https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/4107961?baselin...
- intoverflow2 9y agoAm I the only one sceptical about if these scores actually translate to true computing power? If these things can outperform on passive cooling why are we not seeing people building farms out of them with active cooling.
- lloeki 9y agoYou're right but it's not a drop-in replacement: obviously being passively cooled into such a small device does not make it useful for constantly sustained performance. I'm confident aptly designed hardware surrounding those chips could have the characteristics we're looking for, but there are multiple barriers to break, such as a software <-> hardware synergy that is lacking for laptops, desktops and servers on the ARM side of things, as well as the current platform being largely good enough, so there's really no incentive (yet). IOW it's too esoteric right now to be of value, although some have tried, such as Scaleway, but that's not A11, and we all know where non-Apple ARM performance stands currently.
- zzzcpan 9y agoCan someone repost the content into a comment? I cannot solve cloudflare's captcha.
- JohnicBoom 9y agoHere you go: Intel Management Engine is a proprietary technology that consists of a microcontroller integrated into the Platform Controller Hub (PCH) microchip with a set of built-in peripherals. The PCH carries almost all communication between the processor and external devices; therefore Intel ME has access to almost all data on the computer, and the ability to execute third-party code allows compromising the platform completely. Researchers have been long interested in such "God mode" capabilities, but recently we have seen a surge of interest in Intel ME. One of the reasons is the transition of this subsystem to a new hardware (x86) and software (modified MINIX as an operating system) architecture. The x86 platform allows researchers to bring to bear all the power of binary code analysis tools. Unfortunately, this changing did not go without errors. In a subsystem change that will be detailed in the talk of Intel ME version 11+, a vulnerability was found. It allows an attacker of the machine to run unsigned code in PCH on any motherboard via Skylake+. The main system can remain functional, so the user may not even suspect that his or her computer now has malware resistant to reinstalling of the OS and updating BIOS. Running your own code on ME gives unlimited possibilities for researchers, because it allows exploring the system in dynamics. In our presentation, we will tell how we detected and exploited the vulnerability, and bypassed built-in protection mechanisms.
- komali2 9y agoThis is how the robots win, by social engineering ;P
- JohnicBoom 9y agoI use a VPN whenever I'm not at work, so I know how frustrating it is to be told I didn't pick all the images with a street sign or whatever ridiculous hoop I have to jump through. Especially when I'm only casually interested in the article. Plus, I'm totally fine to help robots out. If they can convincingly post online comments or converse with me, who am I to discriminate?
- exikyut 9y ago> In a subsystem change that will be detailed in the talk of Intel ME version 11+, a vulnerability was found. Okay, so this effects 11.x, but I wanted to clarify that there seem to always have been circumventions floating around out there. I stumbled on https://www.reddit.com/r/onions/comments/5i6qa3/can_the_nsafbi_use_intel_me_to_defeat_tor_on_95/dbkxlw2/?context=10000 https://www.reddit.com/r/onions/comments/5i6qa3/can_the_nsaf... (mirror: http://archive.is/T8yVz http://archive.is/T8yVz) some months ago. It reads a little like a skiddie (a well-connected one) strutting a bit, and I think some of this person's views on ME as a viable attack vector are slightly careless and un-thought-through, but whoever this person is, they seem to be very confident about some of the things they said, particularly the following quotes (to be completely clear, I've removed first-person references): > [This person] know[s] that at least up to firmware version 8 is traded underground, and version 11 (the latest) is available without difficulty to people who know how to find it. [This person has] access to version 8's signing keys [themselves] ... > It's certainly not common but it is absolutely something that FVEY and related contractors (Raytheon, Leidos, half the people you'll see at ISS, etc) will be able to get their hands on, if they haven't already. > [This person has] an enterprise ThinkPad that proudly boasts having WiMax support, requiring extensive configuration. It was expensive. If you don't have a BMC card (and you do not), then it is not possible to remotely control your system. Even if you did have a BMC, simply having the signing keys and toolchain for the ME would not be sufficient to get in. An attacker would need either a 0day, or your credentials. .....Well then. Oops. > Having the signing key allows nothing more than writing malicious firmware over SPI and allowing it to persist. It's just a little more powerful than the UEFI kits cr4sh can write, and just as easily detectable by reading your flash chip. That's still bad! (And I have no idea who cr4sh is.) > But it's not like you're analyzing your microcode (of which there are likely signing keys being traded as well), which can also be installed on a large number of systems, considering the BIOS functions to load the latest microcode it has into the CPU. The above bit is unrelated, but I couldn't leave it out, because that's worth filing away too (...ouch). -- Sources/past comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15187540 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15187540
- mjg59 9y agoThe assertion that you need a BMC card to make use of AMT (you don't, that's kind of the point) makes it pretty hard to assume these claims are credible.
- JBReefer 9y agoHoly shit
- LeoPanthera 9y agoIs Intel ME functional on Macs?
- milcron 9y agoThe AMT feature is not enabled, but I believe the ME chip is physically present on all Intel chips since 2006. https://libreboot.org/faq.html#intel https://libreboot.org/faq.html#intel
- derefr 9y agoThe ME "chip" is the Platform Controller Hub. The ME core on that chip is basically your "real" CPU: it initializes your devices into the correct modes at boot, and does things in response to BIOS interrupts, manages DMA regions according to the ACPI DSDT, virtualizes IRQs, refreshes DRAM, etc. The modern Intel socket CPUs are more like application accelerator cards for this hidden "mother" core. Until recently, you could think of your Intel computer more as an ARC[1] PC with an embedded Intel support slot, than as a pure Intel PC. If you wanted to, you could write a custom BIOS that would boot a Haswell-era motherboard with no CPU inserted, and it would run just fine—because the motherboard already ships with all the CPU it needs to act as a functional computer. (And with the hack on the article, you could run your own software on such a PC, too!) [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synopsys#ARC_International https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synopsys#ARC_International So no, you can't really remove the ME; it functionally "is" the computer in a lot of ways. Of course, you could remove its ability to run software other than its kernel—but this doesn't make it "brain dead" or "switch it off"; it just makes it do very slightly less. There's still a lot of (necessary!) stuff going on in there.
- amigoingtodie 9y agoI would really like to see Doom running on a mobo w the main cpu missing.
- jdiaz5513 9y agoThis is how we shall benchmark that CPU.
- yellowapple 9y ago"One of the reasons is the transition of this subsystem to a new hardware (x86) and software (modified MINIX as an operating system)" Whoa! So wait, every recent desktop and laptop is actually running a tiny MINIX in it? Or am I reading that wrong? If I'm reading it right, then it means that we've totally leapfrogged Linux to usher in the Year of the MINIX Desktop™.
- avodonosov 9y agoIt would be interesting to login into that minix.
- Keyframe 9y agoI hate to be a Debbie Downer / conspiracy borderline, but nothing will change if all of this is true. Some apologies, "it's an oversight, we'll do better", "we take security seriously"... and nada. Maybe some provisional solutions which seem good, but in the back - things will remain status quo.
- rwmj 9y agoThe upcoming SiFive RISC-V 64 bit chip has an open source management layer. In fact the management layer is open source already, before the chips are available generally: https://github.com/sifive/freedom-u-sdk/tree/new https://github.com/sifive/freedom-u-sdk/tree/new (under riscv-pk).
- Keyframe 9y agoRISC-V, in general, excites me very much!
- KGIII 9y agoFor a very brief moment in time, there was some hope that AMD would release their equivalent as open source. That hope was dashed and they will be doing no such thing. For the time being, ARM is making headway in creating usable chips for more serious computing. Well, I guess I should say designing, as opposed to making. I do have current gen hardware and some older hardware, should it reach the point where I need to be concerned. Though, at least theoretically, a good hardware firewall should prevent this from being exploited but most consumers aren't going to invest the effort and money to do so. I'm not really sure what this means for the future of personal computing. Like you say, nothing is going to change. They will continue to roll things like this out onto unexpecting users. I don't have a problem with this being included, but I do have a problem with it not being something you can disable. In fact, I'd prefer it to be off by default. I suppose it'd be okay to have it configured by the OEM, as some large orders may wish it in by default. Either way, it is insecure by design and they show no signs of changing that. It's rather disappointing. I have read, but not yet verified, that AMD's version can be turned off in the BIOS. That also assumes that off means actually off.
- CookieMon 9y agoJoke's on them, my computer's never turned-off. But seriously, I take it we won't know the attack vector until December, however if remotely exploitable they would surely have used the word "remote"? Is any mundane malware with admin rights able to update Intel ME?
- Animats 9y agoThis is very bad. A strong attack based on this could run through entire data centers.
- EdSharkey 9y agoWell, it finally happened. This is potentially the ultimate hack. I can see it now: billion dollar class action lawsuits. Intel, you were too cocky, and now you're gonna eat humble pie. You'd best offer us the firmware to completely and finally eliminate this giant, ossified, ticking timebomb software stack you've dumped into the world's computers. And I want it ALL out, even the trusted path garbage! As if you don't have enough troubles already, Intel. Let's take this one off your plate. How's about doing the right thing and earn back a little respect from the consumers.
- aargh_aargh 9y agoShaming Intel? I'm sure they'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
- EdSharkey 9y agoaargh_aargh! You're right, of course. There's bound to be tons more rot elsewhere, though. And, if they don't eat humble pie now, perhaps they will next time when the exploit can't be mitigated in firmware or via microcode updates. Then lawsuits are filed and consumer protection laws get passed and we see some actual positive change.
- MichaelMoser123 9y agoWhat is the severity of this? Can the ME be patched or will we see half of all current computers owned by a botnet? (or mining ether) Can the ME bypass a firewall by interfacing directly with the NIC?
- MichaelMoser123 9y agoI guess home users who are not behind a restricted firewall are most likely to be vulnerable to this attack vector.
- snakeanus 9y agoConsidering this, remember to push AMD to allow the disabling the PSP (their version of ME) or share the source of it. Recently they said that they won't do it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14803373 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14803373.
- snakeanus 9y agoI wish that they would just publish that "hack" into the public, that way people would hopefully understand the dangers of "black boxes" and maybe even push intel and AMD to remove ME and PSP from their products. I wish that open hardware (CPUS specifically) were more popular and closer to the market. RISC-V is still quite a long way off for everyday use (though I did see a risc-v based arduino thing, which is nice)
- tomxor 9y agoI think if the hack were published we can expect some things from intel with reasonable degree of certainty: 1. They would have to respond publicly (to the general public not just dev community). 2. Somewhat less satisfyingly I expect their first action wont be to issue some kind of widespread automatic disarm of ME, but instead just patch it. They are unlikely to receive the message as "this is insecure by design" and more likely to interpret it as "there was a small bug in out very marketable management engine, we will patch it and all will be fine in the world". Unfortunately the general public wont appreciate the difference and perceive intel to have had a "hicup" which is exactly what intel would want of course, because it's the same general public which make the biggest dent in buying up all those intel-inside stickers.
- iam-TJ 9y agoIt's been getting under my skin how many of these kind of articles repeat the inaccurate (lie) "Hack a turned-off computer" theme For the sake of accuracy stop persisting this myth. Take away the wall power/remove the battery and the thing is dead, nothing is active (obviously doesn't apply to systems with internal battery if they're holding charge). What these articles actually mean is, if the system has power but is in the 'Standby' state (+5V standby), the Intel PCH/ME is active.
- jwilk 9y agoArchived copy, which can be read without JS enabled: https://archive.is/DFvwm https://archive.is/DFvwm
- rubin55 9y agoReally time to take a look at Thalos II (https://www.raptorcs.com/TALOSII/ https://www.raptorcs.com/TALOSII/)
- onikolas 9y agoLet me dial the paranoia up a little by calling your attention to this historic text: http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/712.fall02/papers/p761-thompson.pdf http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/712.fall02/papers/p761-thomps... A quote from the conclusions: "In demonstrating the possibility of this kind of attack, I picked on the C compiler/ I could have picked on any program-handling program such as an assembler, a loader, or even hardware microcode. As the level of program gets lower, these bugs will be harder and harder to detect. A well-installed microcode bug will be almost impossible to detect."
- theWatcher37 9y agoOnce we get to the point where machine learning can develop and deploy exploits/low-level bugs like these will become very interesting, and likely weapons of nation states.
- Relys 9y agoI'm pretty sure that was the entire point of the DARPA Cyber Grand Challenge. XD
- brian_herman 9y agohttp://archive.darpa.mil/cybergrandchallenge/ http://archive.darpa.mil/cybergrandchallenge/
- Szpadel 9y agoHere is nice presentation about hacking intel ME in older processors https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR0nh-TdpVg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR0nh-TdpVg
- gaia 9y agosomeone pls tell me that this vulnerability at least requires the computer to be physically attached to a network.
- fart17563 9y agokfhcjdjjhcjjdjcjcqhqjznjxcw
- fart17563 9y agohhsjhwqxdhjsadbqhcbwnegrhnbbdbhhdjajsjhhshh
- fart17563 9y agohow to hack a tuned off comuputer or running unsigned code in intel me
- throwawaymanbot 9y agoI have yet to hear of this being used to disable a stolen computer... so one has to wonder.