5 ms·
Still no word on removing ME? Is that battle completely lost? Is nobody asking Intel for non-backdoored hardware?
by jordigh 9y ago
Still no word on removing ME?
Is that battle completely lost? Is nobody asking Intel for non-backdoored hardware?
- EdSharkey 9y agoWould removing ME decrease transistor counts and save precious power? I just wonder if there's a small, but loud contingent of execs within Intel making that argument...
- pkaye 9y agoProbably not significantly. A bulk of the transistor count is the caches. I remember a while back at my previous employer we were building an ASIC which had ARM processors along with lots of custom IP. We could sprinkle low end ARM Cortex M3(?) processors all over and it was mostly rounding error in terms of gate count.
- white-flame 9y agoThere is a "High Assurance Platform" configuration included that apparently the NSA uses to disable ME post-boot for their own hardware trustworthiness, so at least 1 body is asking for this.
- fpoling 9y agoOn a new desktop box I discovered that by default ME continues to run even after power down. It is possible to disable that in BIOS but I wonder for how long...
- dvfjsdhgfv 9y agoThey will never admit they backdoored their processors. Their official stance is: Intel does not and will not design backdoors for access into its products. Recent reports claiming otherwise are misinformed and blatantly false. Intel does not participate in any efforts to decrease security of its technology. That means they don't consider it dangerous and will continue shipping their processors with ME.
- singularity2001 9y ago"Intel does not and will not design backdoors" so that means that the backdoors were designed by externals, learning and getting used to their doublespeak.