6 ms·

> I bet you that the next generation of Intel processors will have patched this workaround from working, and maybe go as far removing the ability to kill IME un

> I bet you that the next generation of Intel processors will have patched this workaround from working, and maybe go as far removing the ability to kill IME unless you use some kind of rotating encryption dongle. Unfortunately for consumers, there's no way to escape this as even AMD has their own IME. What would be the justification for Intel going through all that trouble to do that (besides a conspiratorial "the NSA needs it to spy on everyone")? The impression I've gotten, to this point, is that Intel just doesn't care enough about people in the general public who are bothered by the IME to publicly support ways to disable it. Governments had enough buying-power to get Intel to implement an unsupported workaround, but I'm not convinced Intel has a motivation to make accessing that workaround hard.

kuschku 9y ago
> What would be the justification for Intel going through all that trouble to do that (besides a conspiratorial "the NSA needs it to spy on everyone")? Well, some companies and users use the IME to enable theft-prevention technology. If you can circumvent the IME, you can easily steal a laptop and disable this theft-prevention technology. If that’s worth building an ever more closed walled garden is another question.
tree_of_item 9y ago
> besides a conspiratorial "the NSA needs it to spy on everyone" Besides the real reason? I dunno.
- Ajedi32 9y ago
  Do you have any specific evidence that the NSA is directly involved in pushing implementation of IME for the purposes of espionage? That's an extraordinary claim; the mere existence of the NSA isn't sufficient evidence that it's true. Yes, the NSA exists. Yes, it's their job to spy on people. And yes, it's perfectly valid to include mass surveillance in your threat model. But these constant, uncorroborated claims that the NSA boogeyman is hiding behind every rock and tree are starting to become quite tiresome.
  - rantanplan 9y ago
    > the NSA boogeyman is hiding behind every rock and tree are starting to become quite tiresome. Yeah indeed, they have backdoor-ed every ISP, nation, router, HDD, what-have-you in existence and these people keep telling boogeyman tales. Tsk tsk tsk. How tiresome.
    - Ajedi32 9y ago
      > they have backdoor-ed every ISP, nation, router, HDD, what-have-you in existence This is exactly the kind of hyperbolic nonsense I'm talking about. You can't claim that every HDD in existence has an NSA-installed backdoor installed in it without providing any evidence. If the NSA's capabilities were nearly as extensive as you're claiming, the US wouldn't need to bother maintaining a military. They could just remotely command all of North Korea's computers to shut themselves off, then sit back and wait around for their surrender. I'm not saying mass surveillance isn't a problem, or even that the NSA doesn't have a backdoor installed in IME (I certainly don't have evidence to the contrary); just that people need to stop exaggerating the threat, or making claims about the NSA having compromised any specific system without providing any evidence to back those claims up.
      - rantanplan 9y ago
        https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/17/kaspersky_labs_equation_group/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/17/kaspersky_labs_equa... There is an equivalent article from Ars technica, if "theregister" isn't to your liking. As for the evidence on routers and Internet infrastructure, you should pay more attention to leaks of state-sponsored tools, like the equation group leaks and the CIA one.
        Ajedi32 9y ago
        "possibly tens of thousands of Windows computers" is not anywhere near the same thing as "every HDD in existence".
      - roblabla 9y ago
- MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
  It's absurd to suggest that the NSA is the guiding hand behind the IME. For one thing, the enterprise use cases for the thing are quite obvious, so it's not like the NSA would have had to compel Intel to design and implement it in the first place. And if there weren't a demand for it, there's no way the US government could COMPEL them to make the business decision to undertake a massive change to their core product. Nor could they realistically bribe them to do it, not because the government lacks access to funds to make a sufficient large hypothetical bribe, but because Intel is a huge publicly traded multinational. How many employees do you think worked on the IME? How much money do you think it cost? Maybe the NSA has access to some unaccountable billions to throw; would Intel be able to explain that windfall in its books? Perhaps. But how many people would have to keep quiet in perpetuity about all of this? It just keeps stretching believability the more you think about it, like all conspiracy theories that involve more than a handful of actors.
- throw2016 9y ago
  Some people seem to be in denial about NSA. The body of evidence about the ties to private industry via programs like Prism and others is overwhelming for anyone with the barest curiosity. Why would Intel go through all the trouble of creating ME or the broke AMD PSP at around the same time? This is hardwired in silicon, is not cheap to do and definitely needs huge business justification to initiate, implement and maintain. What's the business case? Are they charging a premium for these features and disabling it for everyone else as they would if it was actually a 'premium' feature? Are they giving an option to those who don't want it to disable it without ado? No, they are pushing it on everyone. That itself compromises ME. How do we know there is no NSL in effect forcing both Intel and AMD to implement this. Nobody does. But it is an intrusive piece of tech that has complete authority over your PC.
julian_1 9y ago
> besides a conspiratorial "the NSA needs it to spy on everyone" Isn't the ability to spy on everyone the official mandate of the NSA?
- Ajedi32 9y ago
  Pretty much. That's the NSA's mandate though, not Intel's.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
forgotAgain 9y ago
They don't have a need to spy on everyone, just a compulsion to.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
lurker12390879 9y ago
The HAP bit will probably at the least remain since it's part of the NIST assured computer program.

kuschku 9y ago

> What would be the justification for Intel going through all that trouble to do that (besides a conspiratorial "the NSA needs it to spy on everyone")? Well, some companies and users use the IME to enable theft-prevention technology. If you can circumvent the IME, you can easily steal a laptop and disable this theft-prevention technology. If that’s worth building an ever more closed walled garden is another question.

tree_of_item 9y ago

> besides a conspiratorial "the NSA needs it to spy on everyone" Besides the real reason? I dunno.

Ajedi32 9y ago
Do you have any specific evidence that the NSA is directly involved in pushing implementation of IME for the purposes of espionage? That's an extraordinary claim; the mere existence of the NSA isn't sufficient evidence that it's true. Yes, the NSA exists. Yes, it's their job to spy on people. And yes, it's perfectly valid to include mass surveillance in your threat model. But these constant, uncorroborated claims that the NSA boogeyman is hiding behind every rock and tree are starting to become quite tiresome.
- rantanplan 9y ago
  > the NSA boogeyman is hiding behind every rock and tree are starting to become quite tiresome. Yeah indeed, they have backdoor-ed every ISP, nation, router, HDD, what-have-you in existence and these people keep telling boogeyman tales. Tsk tsk tsk. How tiresome.
  - Ajedi32 9y ago
    > they have backdoor-ed every ISP, nation, router, HDD, what-have-you in existence This is exactly the kind of hyperbolic nonsense I'm talking about. You can't claim that every HDD in existence has an NSA-installed backdoor installed in it without providing any evidence. If the NSA's capabilities were nearly as extensive as you're claiming, the US wouldn't need to bother maintaining a military. They could just remotely command all of North Korea's computers to shut themselves off, then sit back and wait around for their surrender. I'm not saying mass surveillance isn't a problem, or even that the NSA doesn't have a backdoor installed in IME (I certainly don't have evidence to the contrary); just that people need to stop exaggerating the threat, or making claims about the NSA having compromised any specific system without providing any evidence to back those claims up.
    - rantanplan 9y ago
      https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/17/kaspersky_labs_equation_group/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/17/kaspersky_labs_equa... There is an equivalent article from Ars technica, if "theregister" isn't to your liking. As for the evidence on routers and Internet infrastructure, you should pay more attention to leaks of state-sponsored tools, like the equation group leaks and the CIA one.
      - Ajedi32 9y ago
        "possibly tens of thousands of Windows computers" is not anywhere near the same thing as "every HDD in existence".
    - roblabla 9y ago
MaxfordAndSons 9y ago
It's absurd to suggest that the NSA is the guiding hand behind the IME. For one thing, the enterprise use cases for the thing are quite obvious, so it's not like the NSA would have had to compel Intel to design and implement it in the first place. And if there weren't a demand for it, there's no way the US government could COMPEL them to make the business decision to undertake a massive change to their core product. Nor could they realistically bribe them to do it, not because the government lacks access to funds to make a sufficient large hypothetical bribe, but because Intel is a huge publicly traded multinational. How many employees do you think worked on the IME? How much money do you think it cost? Maybe the NSA has access to some unaccountable billions to throw; would Intel be able to explain that windfall in its books? Perhaps. But how many people would have to keep quiet in perpetuity about all of this? It just keeps stretching believability the more you think about it, like all conspiracy theories that involve more than a handful of actors.
throw2016 9y ago
Some people seem to be in denial about NSA. The body of evidence about the ties to private industry via programs like Prism and others is overwhelming for anyone with the barest curiosity. Why would Intel go through all the trouble of creating ME or the broke AMD PSP at around the same time? This is hardwired in silicon, is not cheap to do and definitely needs huge business justification to initiate, implement and maintain. What's the business case? Are they charging a premium for these features and disabling it for everyone else as they would if it was actually a 'premium' feature? Are they giving an option to those who don't want it to disable it without ado? No, they are pushing it on everyone. That itself compromises ME. How do we know there is no NSL in effect forcing both Intel and AMD to implement this. Nobody does. But it is an intrusive piece of tech that has complete authority over your PC.

julian_1 9y ago

> besides a conspiratorial "the NSA needs it to spy on everyone" Isn't the ability to spy on everyone the official mandate of the NSA?

Ajedi32 9y ago
Pretty much. That's the NSA's mandate though, not Intel's.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

forgotAgain 9y ago

They don't have a need to spy on everyone, just a compulsion to.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

lurker12390879 9y ago

The HAP bit will probably at the least remain since it's part of the NIST assured computer program.