4 ms·
If there is a "safe" state, there's also an "unsafe" state and it was obviously introduced knowing it might be unsafe, otherwise there'd be no "safe" state. Lo
by dmichulke 9y ago
If there is a "safe" state, there's also an "unsafe" state and it was obviously introduced knowing it might be unsafe, otherwise there'd be no "safe" state.
Long story short, it's not a backdoor but a key to a backdoor which implies there is a backdoor.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoME is the backdoor - it's unsafe by default meaning it can be used to inspect/control your machine remotely. That, AFAIK, is it's primary and stated function!
- lima 9y agoFalse. ME by itself does not do any remote communication whatsoever. Zero external attack surface. Different story for vPro, but you can disable it. It's a great place, however, to gain persistence after an initial compromise as the talk shows.
- sounds 9y agoDo you have proof that the ME does not do any remote communication and has zero attack surface? Be sure to include "internal" attack surfaces that may be accessible from malware in ring 0.
- lima 9y agoI was talking about the external attack surface, and there's absolutely no indication that ME has any such attack surface as far as software vulnerabilities go. They could have built a deliberate backdoor into the network code, but that's highly unlikely. It obviously has a lot of internal attack surface, which is bad enough.
- dmichulke 9y agoI also assume it's the backdoor but with this piece of info (there is a "safe" state") the Intel people cannot legally claim they didn't know it was unsafe, so stupidity is ruled out (as in the saying never attribute to malevolence ...) The last missing piece is now whether ME was actively put there to enable a few agencies to gain unauthorized access.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]