9 ms·

Certainly if the lifespan of Intel chips turns out to be much shorter than the marketplace expected (because Intel is unable to provide security updates), that

Certainly if the lifespan of Intel chips turns out to be much shorter than the marketplace expected (because Intel is unable to provide security updates), that affects the value of Intel products and ought to inform future buying decisions. Whether it is the unfortunate materialization of Spectre-style bugs or the deliberately insecure-by-design ME, Intel's inability to support its products is dismaying.

brudgers 8y ago
The ordinary life cycle of an Intel CPU is the five t̶h̶r̶e̶e̶ year depreciation schedule in the US tax system. The life cycle for Intel's most important customers is less and is based on operating cost in large data centers and these are driven by density, throughput, and energy utilization. Traditionally this has been two years or less as reflected in Intel's tick-tock iteration strategy. The critical life cycle for Intel is not consumer/SMB sales which don't generate sales frequencies and volumes of leading edge products.
- ec109685 8y ago
  Do you have any citations that companies are replacing their intel processors every 2 years? That is not inline with what I have seen.
  - ams6110 8y ago
    More like 5 years, or even longer, where I work. We have some 7 year old Dell servers that are still chugging along, performing their duties as well as ever.
    - brudgers 8y ago
      Curious if they are managed with ME.
      - close04 8y ago
        They have the ME and Server Platform Services (SPS) on top of that but I doubt anyone uses that to manage when Dells have DRAC/iDRAC.
    - close04 8y ago
      Usually the amortization of such systems is ~ 4 years. But many smaller companies choose to stay with the old systems a little longer, 5, or even 6 years lately. Simply because there is no push performance wise. The main motivation for upgrade is software support (usually for the OS, driven by Microsoft), or failure rates for the older systems. And that's for the desktop side. For servers they tend to be taken out of commission when the service they provide is migrated to a whole new platform and the legacy one goes to a better place along with the metal. Servers are more reliable than your regular desktops, they get better support, and most companies don't upgrade running systems. P.S. I don't know of any enterprise environment where ME is used for managing servers. It's usually ILO, ILOM, DRAC, IMM, RMM. I think ME is mostly for desktops or SOHO, Intel has RMM for servers.
      - oneplane 8y ago
        Also, on servers, Intel has (requires?) SPS: server platform services. It's like an ME, but worse, and without a way to neuter it. Edit: a quick search yields a common core or division at Intel behind the ME and SPS, so that makes a bit of sense. There has been at least 1 exploit in the wild for that SPS, it also lists TXT and ME, so I guess it's a shared (MINIX?) kernel that had the bug.
      - forapurpose 8y ago
        > For servers they tend to be taken out of commission when the service they provide is migrated to a whole new platform Or when the service contract expires or is too expensive to extend. You can't run a server of any importance without a service contract; it can be the difference between all the server's users and services being down for hours or a more than a week, and between IT management keeping their job for hours or longer.
        mmt 8y ago
        That's just the "enterprise" hardware model. It's overall extremely expensive to begin with and may have made sense back in the days of proprietary hardware, but makes no sense for a commodity hardware installation beyond a trivial size. It's hard to imagine not being able to find a replacement in more than a week, especially if one skipped service contract and just bought a spare or two with a fraction of the savings. It's why moving to cloud infrastructure can be so much cheaper for these shops. Of course, if it is a trivial size, like a single server at a small business, that's a different story.
  - samstave 8y ago
    extrapolate as you will... https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/ec2-instance-history/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/ec2-instance-history/ I didn’t have one, but it seemed like a worthwhile thing to have and so I spent a few minutes putting the following list together (these are all announcement dates): August 2006 – m1.small. October 2007 – m1.large, m1.xlarge. May 2008 – c1.medium, c1.xlarge. October 2009 – m2.2xlarge, m2.4xlarge. February 2010 – m2.xlarge. July 2010 – cc1.4xlarge. September 2010 – t1.micro. November 2010 – cg1.4xlarge. November 2011 – cc2.8xlarge. March 2012 – m1.medium. July 2012 – hi1.4xlarge. October 2012 – m3.xlarge, m3.2xlarge. December 2012 – hs1.8xlarge. January 2013 – cr1.8xlarge. November 2013 – c3.large, c3.xlarge, c3.2xlarge, c3.4xlarge, c3.8xlarge. November 2013 – g2.2xlarge. December 2013 – i2.xlarge, i2.2xlarge, i2.4xlarge, i2.8xlarge. January 2014 – m3.medium, m3.large. April 2014 – r3.large, r3.xlarge, r3.2xlarge, r3.4xlarge, r3.8xlarge. July 2014 – t2.micro, t2.small, t2.medium. January 2015 – c4.large, c4.xlarge, c4.2xlarge, c4.4xlarge, c4.8xlarge. March 2015 – d2.xlarge, d2.2xlarge, d2.4xlarge, d2.8xlarge. April 2015 – g2.8xlarge. June 2015 – t2.large. June 2015 – m4.large, m4.xlarge, m4.2xlarge, m4.4xlarge, m4.10xlarge. December 2015 – t2.nano. May 2016 – x1.32xlarge. September 2016 – m4.16xlarge. September 2016 – p2.xlarge, p2.8xlarge, p2.16xlarge. October 2016 – x1.16xlarge. November 2016 – f1.2xlarge, f1.16xlarge. November 2016 – r4.large, r4.xlarge, r4.2xlarge, r4.4xlarge, r4.8xlarge, r4.16xlarge. November 2016 – t2.xlarge, t2.2xlarge. November 2016 – i3.large, i3.xlarge, i3.2xlarge, i3.4xlarge, i3.8xlarge, i3.16xlarge. November 2016 – c5.large, c5.xlarge, c5.2xlarge, c5.4xlarge, c5.8xlarge, c5.16xlarge. July 2017 – g3.4xlarge, g3.8xlarge, g3.16xlarge. September 2017 – x1e.32xlarge. October 2017 – p3.2xlarge, p3.8xlarge, p3.16xlarge. November 2017 – x1e.xlarge, x1e.2xlarge, x1e.4xlarge, x1e.8xlarge, x1e.16xlarge. November 2017 – m5.large, m5.xlarge, m5.2xlarge, m5.4xlarge, m5.12xlarge, m5.24xlarge. November 2017 – h1.2xlarge, h1.4xlarge, h1.8xlarge, h1.16xlarge. November 2017 – i3.metal. June 2018 – m5d.large, m5d.xlarge, m5d.2xlarge, m5d.4xlarge, m5d.12xlarge, m5d.24xlarge. July 2018 – z1d.large, z1d.xlarge, z1d.2xlarge, z1d.3xlarge, z1d.6xlarge, z1d.12xlarge, z1d.metal, r5.large, r5.xlarge, r5.2xlarge, r5.4xlarge, r5.12xlarge, r5.metal, r5.24xlarge, r5d.large, r5d.xlarge, r5d.2xlarge, r5d.4xlarge, r5d.12xlarge, r5d.24xlarge, r5d.metal.
    - mmt 8y ago
      Unfortunately, announcement dates only give one endpoint of the timeline. The other endpoint, retirement date (from even previous-generation availability), is crucial to any anlysis.
- dantillberg 8y ago
  The US IRS depreciation schedule for computer equipment is five years, not three years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MACRS#MACRS_GDS_property_classes_table https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MACRS#MACRS_GDS_property_class....
- woolvalley 8y ago
  If something is considered broken before the full 5 years and you throw it away, you can deduct the rest of the cost right away correct?
- ebikelaw 8y ago
  This is not in accordance with my experience. The life of an Intel platform in a datacenter is more like 7-10 years.
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    What insurance comapny insures that? What company offers SLAs like that? I want in on that deal!
    - ebikelaw 8y ago
      I have no idea since I'm not in the finance department. Start up an AWS m1.small instance and see what kind of CPU you're using. You may be surprised. Even AWS's current mainstream "M4" offering is using a CPU from 4 years ago.
      - TomMarius 8y ago
        Yeah I guess that AWS gets these deals, maybe even supports it themselves. We others don't/can't (no, AWS is not an option). :-(
    - CamperBob2 8y ago
      Why is this an insurance issue? Do you expect the servers to catch on fire?
      - TomMarius 8y ago
        Well the distributors stamp the top of the server with a sticker that says it's safely operable for 2 years, so no one is going to insure it for more, of course. Might be European thing, though; good think for enthusiasts is that it's common to contact a company and join their next 2 years buyout and acquire cheap hardware.
        close04 8y ago
        I've never seen this 2 year thing in Europe. There are plenty of companies that stick to their servers for over 5 years. Some servers stay there even for more than a decade because they deliver a service using software that is no longer developed or supported, and there's no replacement for it in the company. So they keep them there, chugging along. But with x86 being basically commodity and virtualization being used everywhere this is less of an issue in most cases. It means your VMs can mostly run on whatever metal you throw under them and that x86 metal can just be propped up to keep working for many, many years.
- lowbloodsugar 8y ago
  Depreciation determines the minimum age not the maximum. I've seen XP boxes still in use.
  - close04 8y ago
    Yes but it's also used as a reference point for when you can upgrade. It's not the trigger but way back when YoY performance improvements were substantial companies waited for the amortization cycle to complete and jumped on the next gen. Not anymore, no point. But the XP example you gave kind of undermines the point. Nobody should be using XP. Not even on air-gapped networks, totally cut off, with a special support contract from MS, etc. If anyone is still using it they clearly have nothing but disregard for any kind of rules (like all the XP ATMS still out there).
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      >Nobody should be using XP. Not even on air-gapped networks, totally cut off, with a special support contract from MS, etc. I think you're severely over-estimating the criticality of stuff that's still running XP. It's mostly used for antiquated industrial hardware that gets used 5x a year, maybe (old CNC mills and whatnot), often times with no network. If it gets crypotwalled via flash-drive then someone will reinstall it and carry on with life.
      - close04 8y ago
        More accurately, current stats put XP at around 4-6% of the world's desktops. Only Windows 7, 10, and 8.1 beat it. That's more than Linux and more than any MacOS version (more than almost all all of them put together). That would be ~5 million XP machines, give or take. So we're talking about 5 million machines with an OS designed in the late '90s (20 years ago) and that stopped receiving any meaningful updates 4 years ago. Most of them are actually ATMs in developing countries like India and they are definitely not air-gapped [1]. The POSReady XP with the bare modicum of support until April 2019 made companies take it as a green light to keep using XP in embedded systems. Other systems running XP: many of the NHS systems hit by WannaCry last year, many of the systems in UK Police stations, most electronic voting machines and gas stations in the US, most digital signage in train stations, airports, hospitals, or cinemas, parking garage payment machines, so many POSes, even passport security in some airports! Does this put the magnitude of the problem in perspective? It's a threat from so many perspectives. Your safety, your data, your money, you name it. [1] https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=11311&Mode=0 https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=1131...
iknowverylittle 8y ago
So, what's AMD doing these days? I'm hesitant to switch to AMD since Intel internal graphics play nicely with Linux. However that kind of doesn't matter if my machine isn't mine.
- std_throwaway 8y ago
  AMD has the PSP which basically is the same thing. But we don't know for sure what either one does.
  - mrsteveman1 8y ago
    One thing the PSP doesn't have is AMT style remote management. AMD has their own kind of management system available on some machines (DASH, using "smart" NICs like Broadcom), but the PSP isn't even involved when DASH is available and in use, as far as I know. However, on my Intel machine with AMT, there's a network port opened by the ME itself (TCP/16992). It can use the same IP as the main OS, or a different IP entirely if desired. It uses the same ethernet port as the main OS though, splitting the packets that are directed to one of the ME ports and selectively allowing the rest to continue to the main OS (there's a low-level ME firewall[1]). On that port, there is a full remote desktop with mouse and keyboard, the ability to remotely connect small drives and/or ISO files, a remote serial console, a low level firewall configuration utility, and power/reboot controls. Even on machines where AMT is not even supposed to be available, there have been PoC demonstrated using one of the ME flaws to turn it back on[2]. [1] https://i.imgur.com/Wphopk1.jpg https://i.imgur.com/Wphopk1.jpg (slide 68) [2] https://www.blackhat.com/docs/eu-17/materials/eu-17-Goryachy-How-To-Hack-A-Turned-Off-Computer-Or-Running-Unsigned-Code-In-Intel-Management-Engine.pdf https://www.blackhat.com/docs/eu-17/materials/eu-17-Goryachy...
    - iknowverylittle 8y ago
      You know the shame of ME is that the concept and intended use isn't terrible and the engineering behind it is rather cool. It is however unfortunate how poorly Intel implemented it and essentially forced it onto personal systems that have no need for it to begin with.
AndriiG2018 8y ago
i think you are absolutely correct. It is faulty mostly unwanted, not properly test feature. Need to be re-called and replaced at Intel cost. Period.

brudgers 8y ago

The ordinary life cycle of an Intel CPU is the five t̶h̶r̶e̶e̶ year depreciation schedule in the US tax system. The life cycle for Intel's most important customers is less and is based on operating cost in large data centers and these are driven by density, throughput, and energy utilization. Traditionally this has been two years or less as reflected in Intel's tick-tock iteration strategy. The critical life cycle for Intel is not consumer/SMB sales which don't generate sales frequencies and volumes of leading edge products.

ec109685 8y ago
Do you have any citations that companies are replacing their intel processors every 2 years? That is not inline with what I have seen.
- ams6110 8y ago
  More like 5 years, or even longer, where I work. We have some 7 year old Dell servers that are still chugging along, performing their duties as well as ever.
  - brudgers 8y ago
    Curious if they are managed with ME.
    - close04 8y ago
      They have the ME and Server Platform Services (SPS) on top of that but I doubt anyone uses that to manage when Dells have DRAC/iDRAC.
  - close04 8y ago
    Usually the amortization of such systems is ~ 4 years. But many smaller companies choose to stay with the old systems a little longer, 5, or even 6 years lately. Simply because there is no push performance wise. The main motivation for upgrade is software support (usually for the OS, driven by Microsoft), or failure rates for the older systems. And that's for the desktop side. For servers they tend to be taken out of commission when the service they provide is migrated to a whole new platform and the legacy one goes to a better place along with the metal. Servers are more reliable than your regular desktops, they get better support, and most companies don't upgrade running systems. P.S. I don't know of any enterprise environment where ME is used for managing servers. It's usually ILO, ILOM, DRAC, IMM, RMM. I think ME is mostly for desktops or SOHO, Intel has RMM for servers.
    - oneplane 8y ago
      Also, on servers, Intel has (requires?) SPS: server platform services. It's like an ME, but worse, and without a way to neuter it. Edit: a quick search yields a common core or division at Intel behind the ME and SPS, so that makes a bit of sense. There has been at least 1 exploit in the wild for that SPS, it also lists TXT and ME, so I guess it's a shared (MINIX?) kernel that had the bug.
    - forapurpose 8y ago
      > For servers they tend to be taken out of commission when the service they provide is migrated to a whole new platform Or when the service contract expires or is too expensive to extend. You can't run a server of any importance without a service contract; it can be the difference between all the server's users and services being down for hours or a more than a week, and between IT management keeping their job for hours or longer.
      - mmt 8y ago
        That's just the "enterprise" hardware model. It's overall extremely expensive to begin with and may have made sense back in the days of proprietary hardware, but makes no sense for a commodity hardware installation beyond a trivial size. It's hard to imagine not being able to find a replacement in more than a week, especially if one skipped service contract and just bought a spare or two with a fraction of the savings. It's why moving to cloud infrastructure can be so much cheaper for these shops. Of course, if it is a trivial size, like a single server at a small business, that's a different story.
- samstave 8y ago
  extrapolate as you will... https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/ec2-instance-history/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/ec2-instance-history/ I didn’t have one, but it seemed like a worthwhile thing to have and so I spent a few minutes putting the following list together (these are all announcement dates): August 2006 – m1.small. October 2007 – m1.large, m1.xlarge. May 2008 – c1.medium, c1.xlarge. October 2009 – m2.2xlarge, m2.4xlarge. February 2010 – m2.xlarge. July 2010 – cc1.4xlarge. September 2010 – t1.micro. November 2010 – cg1.4xlarge. November 2011 – cc2.8xlarge. March 2012 – m1.medium. July 2012 – hi1.4xlarge. October 2012 – m3.xlarge, m3.2xlarge. December 2012 – hs1.8xlarge. January 2013 – cr1.8xlarge. November 2013 – c3.large, c3.xlarge, c3.2xlarge, c3.4xlarge, c3.8xlarge. November 2013 – g2.2xlarge. December 2013 – i2.xlarge, i2.2xlarge, i2.4xlarge, i2.8xlarge. January 2014 – m3.medium, m3.large. April 2014 – r3.large, r3.xlarge, r3.2xlarge, r3.4xlarge, r3.8xlarge. July 2014 – t2.micro, t2.small, t2.medium. January 2015 – c4.large, c4.xlarge, c4.2xlarge, c4.4xlarge, c4.8xlarge. March 2015 – d2.xlarge, d2.2xlarge, d2.4xlarge, d2.8xlarge. April 2015 – g2.8xlarge. June 2015 – t2.large. June 2015 – m4.large, m4.xlarge, m4.2xlarge, m4.4xlarge, m4.10xlarge. December 2015 – t2.nano. May 2016 – x1.32xlarge. September 2016 – m4.16xlarge. September 2016 – p2.xlarge, p2.8xlarge, p2.16xlarge. October 2016 – x1.16xlarge. November 2016 – f1.2xlarge, f1.16xlarge. November 2016 – r4.large, r4.xlarge, r4.2xlarge, r4.4xlarge, r4.8xlarge, r4.16xlarge. November 2016 – t2.xlarge, t2.2xlarge. November 2016 – i3.large, i3.xlarge, i3.2xlarge, i3.4xlarge, i3.8xlarge, i3.16xlarge. November 2016 – c5.large, c5.xlarge, c5.2xlarge, c5.4xlarge, c5.8xlarge, c5.16xlarge. July 2017 – g3.4xlarge, g3.8xlarge, g3.16xlarge. September 2017 – x1e.32xlarge. October 2017 – p3.2xlarge, p3.8xlarge, p3.16xlarge. November 2017 – x1e.xlarge, x1e.2xlarge, x1e.4xlarge, x1e.8xlarge, x1e.16xlarge. November 2017 – m5.large, m5.xlarge, m5.2xlarge, m5.4xlarge, m5.12xlarge, m5.24xlarge. November 2017 – h1.2xlarge, h1.4xlarge, h1.8xlarge, h1.16xlarge. November 2017 – i3.metal. June 2018 – m5d.large, m5d.xlarge, m5d.2xlarge, m5d.4xlarge, m5d.12xlarge, m5d.24xlarge. July 2018 – z1d.large, z1d.xlarge, z1d.2xlarge, z1d.3xlarge, z1d.6xlarge, z1d.12xlarge, z1d.metal, r5.large, r5.xlarge, r5.2xlarge, r5.4xlarge, r5.12xlarge, r5.metal, r5.24xlarge, r5d.large, r5d.xlarge, r5d.2xlarge, r5d.4xlarge, r5d.12xlarge, r5d.24xlarge, r5d.metal.
  - mmt 8y ago
    Unfortunately, announcement dates only give one endpoint of the timeline. The other endpoint, retirement date (from even previous-generation availability), is crucial to any anlysis.
dantillberg 8y ago
The US IRS depreciation schedule for computer equipment is five years, not three years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MACRS#MACRS_GDS_property_classes_table https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MACRS#MACRS_GDS_property_class....
woolvalley 8y ago
If something is considered broken before the full 5 years and you throw it away, you can deduct the rest of the cost right away correct?
ebikelaw 8y ago
This is not in accordance with my experience. The life of an Intel platform in a datacenter is more like 7-10 years.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  What insurance comapny insures that? What company offers SLAs like that? I want in on that deal!
  - ebikelaw 8y ago
    I have no idea since I'm not in the finance department. Start up an AWS m1.small instance and see what kind of CPU you're using. You may be surprised. Even AWS's current mainstream "M4" offering is using a CPU from 4 years ago.
    - TomMarius 8y ago
      Yeah I guess that AWS gets these deals, maybe even supports it themselves. We others don't/can't (no, AWS is not an option). :-(
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    Why is this an insurance issue? Do you expect the servers to catch on fire?
    - TomMarius 8y ago
      Well the distributors stamp the top of the server with a sticker that says it's safely operable for 2 years, so no one is going to insure it for more, of course. Might be European thing, though; good think for enthusiasts is that it's common to contact a company and join their next 2 years buyout and acquire cheap hardware.
      - close04 8y ago
        I've never seen this 2 year thing in Europe. There are plenty of companies that stick to their servers for over 5 years. Some servers stay there even for more than a decade because they deliver a service using software that is no longer developed or supported, and there's no replacement for it in the company. So they keep them there, chugging along. But with x86 being basically commodity and virtualization being used everywhere this is less of an issue in most cases. It means your VMs can mostly run on whatever metal you throw under them and that x86 metal can just be propped up to keep working for many, many years.
lowbloodsugar 8y ago
Depreciation determines the minimum age not the maximum. I've seen XP boxes still in use.
- close04 8y ago
  Yes but it's also used as a reference point for when you can upgrade. It's not the trigger but way back when YoY performance improvements were substantial companies waited for the amortization cycle to complete and jumped on the next gen. Not anymore, no point. But the XP example you gave kind of undermines the point. Nobody should be using XP. Not even on air-gapped networks, totally cut off, with a special support contract from MS, etc. If anyone is still using it they clearly have nothing but disregard for any kind of rules (like all the XP ATMS still out there).
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >Nobody should be using XP. Not even on air-gapped networks, totally cut off, with a special support contract from MS, etc. I think you're severely over-estimating the criticality of stuff that's still running XP. It's mostly used for antiquated industrial hardware that gets used 5x a year, maybe (old CNC mills and whatnot), often times with no network. If it gets crypotwalled via flash-drive then someone will reinstall it and carry on with life.
    - close04 8y ago
      More accurately, current stats put XP at around 4-6% of the world's desktops. Only Windows 7, 10, and 8.1 beat it. That's more than Linux and more than any MacOS version (more than almost all all of them put together). That would be ~5 million XP machines, give or take. So we're talking about 5 million machines with an OS designed in the late '90s (20 years ago) and that stopped receiving any meaningful updates 4 years ago. Most of them are actually ATMs in developing countries like India and they are definitely not air-gapped [1]. The POSReady XP with the bare modicum of support until April 2019 made companies take it as a green light to keep using XP in embedded systems. Other systems running XP: many of the NHS systems hit by WannaCry last year, many of the systems in UK Police stations, most electronic voting machines and gas stations in the US, most digital signage in train stations, airports, hospitals, or cinemas, parking garage payment machines, so many POSes, even passport security in some airports! Does this put the magnitude of the problem in perspective? It's a threat from so many perspectives. Your safety, your data, your money, you name it. [1] https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=11311&Mode=0 https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=1131...

iknowverylittle 8y ago

So, what's AMD doing these days? I'm hesitant to switch to AMD since Intel internal graphics play nicely with Linux. However that kind of doesn't matter if my machine isn't mine.

std_throwaway 8y ago
AMD has the PSP which basically is the same thing. But we don't know for sure what either one does.
- mrsteveman1 8y ago
  One thing the PSP doesn't have is AMT style remote management. AMD has their own kind of management system available on some machines (DASH, using "smart" NICs like Broadcom), but the PSP isn't even involved when DASH is available and in use, as far as I know. However, on my Intel machine with AMT, there's a network port opened by the ME itself (TCP/16992). It can use the same IP as the main OS, or a different IP entirely if desired. It uses the same ethernet port as the main OS though, splitting the packets that are directed to one of the ME ports and selectively allowing the rest to continue to the main OS (there's a low-level ME firewall[1]). On that port, there is a full remote desktop with mouse and keyboard, the ability to remotely connect small drives and/or ISO files, a remote serial console, a low level firewall configuration utility, and power/reboot controls. Even on machines where AMT is not even supposed to be available, there have been PoC demonstrated using one of the ME flaws to turn it back on[2]. [1] https://i.imgur.com/Wphopk1.jpg https://i.imgur.com/Wphopk1.jpg (slide 68) [2] https://www.blackhat.com/docs/eu-17/materials/eu-17-Goryachy-How-To-Hack-A-Turned-Off-Computer-Or-Running-Unsigned-Code-In-Intel-Management-Engine.pdf https://www.blackhat.com/docs/eu-17/materials/eu-17-Goryachy...
  - iknowverylittle 8y ago
    You know the shame of ME is that the concept and intended use isn't terrible and the engineering behind it is rather cool. It is however unfortunate how poorly Intel implemented it and essentially forced it onto personal systems that have no need for it to begin with.

AndriiG2018 8y ago

i think you are absolutely correct. It is faulty mostly unwanted, not properly test feature. Need to be re-called and replaced at Intel cost. Period.