4 ms·

"Intel's processor's ME does not have a backdoor" Can you prove it? It would at least raise confidence if * It was open source. * It could be disabled. * NS

"Intel's processor's ME does not have a backdoor" Can you prove it? It would at least raise confidence if * It was open source. * It could be disabled. * NSA hadn't requested from intel for their own undocumented way to disable ME. "the chance there is a remotely exploitable vulnerability is minimal" https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000025619/software.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000... "Hardly anyone cares because it is mostly schizo people who fall for these conspiracy theories."* I can't appreciate the slur against people with schizophrenia. In addition to that, it feels like you would say the same about NSA spying before the Snowden revelations. Although I do wonder, if there was a backdoor in intel processors for the law enforcement to access, would you support it?

charcircuit 5y ago
>Can you prove it? I can't prove it. But Intel has gone on record stating there is no backdoor. People who have reverse engineered it have not stated there is a backdoor. >* It was open source. You could say the name thing about Windows. People and business have reasons why they want to restrict access to the source come. >* It could be disabled. The ME is required for your computer to properly boot. If it was disabled, then your computer wouldn't work. >* NSA hadn't requested from intel for their own undocumented way to disable ME. The government can be overly paranoid. Just look at the procedures they have had for disposing harddrives when simply zeroing the drive was enough. >linked vulnerability That vulnerability required someone to have physical access to your machine no they could attach a flasher to it. Once an attacker has physical access to your machine most people would consider this game over. That vulnerability was not remotely executable. >In addition to that, it feels like you would say the same about NSA spying before the Snowden revelations. I don't know enough about the Snowden revelations to answer this. >if there was a backdoor in intel processors for the law enforcement to access, would you support it? If access could be implemented in a secure way and it required a warrant then yes I would support it. It would be a better alternative than someone breaking down your door to physically take your computer leaving you without one for months or never being able to retrieve it.
- ttybird2 5y ago
  "I can't prove it." I would suggest not using slurs and claim that people who think otherwise are schizophrenic then. "But Intel has gone on record stating there is no backdoor" It would not be much of a backdoor if they said otherwise. "People who have reverse engineered it have not stated there is a backdoor." I am curious about that. Got a link? "The government can be overly paranoid." No reason for civilians not to be as paranoid. "People and business have reasons why they want to restrict access to the source come." Obviously, one of them is hiding backdoors. Not saying that closed source software has to be backdoored, it just does not raise confidence. "It would be a better alternative than someone breaking down your door" Why not let the government have a master-key of every door then? Sounds like a solution in similar spirit. "If access could be implemented in a secure way and it required a warrant" Got any technical suggestion regarding its implementation? How would you make sure that a warrant would be required and that the private key would not leak?
  - charcircuit 5y ago
    >I would suggest not using slurs and claim that people who think otherwise are schizophrenic then. I'm not sure what you expect from me. I similarly can't prove that almost every piece of hardware and software isn't backdoored, but it would be silly to think that it all is especially if you have experience designing hardware or software products. At least the people who do talk to me about being afraid of the ME often are overly paranoid and don't have a good understanding of hardware / software. These people often think ARM's TrustZone is an equivalent to ME. >It would not be much of a backdoor if they said otherwise. Intel is kind of in an impossible situation then. They can't prove there is no backdoor because it wouldn't be much of a backdoor if they showed you. You have to trust Intel that they are developing a secure product. It is Intel's best interest to develop a secure product. >I am curious about that. Got a link? I can't link to something that doesn't exist, but there have been a few people / teams who have attempted reversing it which you can find by googling. >No reason for civilians not to be as paranoid. Sure people can be paranoid, but it can get in the way of them living their life. >Why not let the government have a master-key of every door then? This seems like a logistical nightmare, but something similar already exists for emergency purposes such as for fire fighters. >Got any technical suggestion regarding its implementation? People who sign warrants have a hardware device which holds their private key. If this device gets lost or stolen the key can be invalidated. The private key wouldn't leak because you can't access the key itself. The hardware device could potentially also have a rate limit like 100 machines per day to limit abuse.

charcircuit 5y ago

>Can you prove it? I can't prove it. But Intel has gone on record stating there is no backdoor. People who have reverse engineered it have not stated there is a backdoor. >* It was open source. You could say the name thing about Windows. People and business have reasons why they want to restrict access to the source come. >* It could be disabled. The ME is required for your computer to properly boot. If it was disabled, then your computer wouldn't work. >* NSA hadn't requested from intel for their own undocumented way to disable ME. The government can be overly paranoid. Just look at the procedures they have had for disposing harddrives when simply zeroing the drive was enough. >linked vulnerability That vulnerability required someone to have physical access to your machine no they could attach a flasher to it. Once an attacker has physical access to your machine most people would consider this game over. That vulnerability was not remotely executable. >In addition to that, it feels like you would say the same about NSA spying before the Snowden revelations. I don't know enough about the Snowden revelations to answer this. >if there was a backdoor in intel processors for the law enforcement to access, would you support it? If access could be implemented in a secure way and it required a warrant then yes I would support it. It would be a better alternative than someone breaking down your door to physically take your computer leaving you without one for months or never being able to retrieve it.

ttybird2 5y ago
"I can't prove it." I would suggest not using slurs and claim that people who think otherwise are schizophrenic then. "But Intel has gone on record stating there is no backdoor" It would not be much of a backdoor if they said otherwise. "People who have reverse engineered it have not stated there is a backdoor." I am curious about that. Got a link? "The government can be overly paranoid." No reason for civilians not to be as paranoid. "People and business have reasons why they want to restrict access to the source come." Obviously, one of them is hiding backdoors. Not saying that closed source software has to be backdoored, it just does not raise confidence. "It would be a better alternative than someone breaking down your door" Why not let the government have a master-key of every door then? Sounds like a solution in similar spirit. "If access could be implemented in a secure way and it required a warrant" Got any technical suggestion regarding its implementation? How would you make sure that a warrant would be required and that the private key would not leak?
- charcircuit 5y ago
  >I would suggest not using slurs and claim that people who think otherwise are schizophrenic then. I'm not sure what you expect from me. I similarly can't prove that almost every piece of hardware and software isn't backdoored, but it would be silly to think that it all is especially if you have experience designing hardware or software products. At least the people who do talk to me about being afraid of the ME often are overly paranoid and don't have a good understanding of hardware / software. These people often think ARM's TrustZone is an equivalent to ME. >It would not be much of a backdoor if they said otherwise. Intel is kind of in an impossible situation then. They can't prove there is no backdoor because it wouldn't be much of a backdoor if they showed you. You have to trust Intel that they are developing a secure product. It is Intel's best interest to develop a secure product. >I am curious about that. Got a link? I can't link to something that doesn't exist, but there have been a few people / teams who have attempted reversing it which you can find by googling. >No reason for civilians not to be as paranoid. Sure people can be paranoid, but it can get in the way of them living their life. >Why not let the government have a master-key of every door then? This seems like a logistical nightmare, but something similar already exists for emergency purposes such as for fire fighters. >Got any technical suggestion regarding its implementation? People who sign warrants have a hardware device which holds their private key. If this device gets lost or stolen the key can be invalidated. The private key wouldn't leak because you can't access the key itself. The hardware device could potentially also have a rate limit like 100 machines per day to limit abuse.