9 ms·

It's absolutely insane that _this_ is what it takes to get IME fully disabled.

dottedmag 4y ago
Well, it's a very detailed guide how to dump contents of flash device, update and put it back. If the guide said "dump the flash" and "write back the flash" instead of the detailed instructions, and only described firmware manipulation steps in details it would be much shorter.
intelVISA 4y ago
Both absolutely insane and completely understandable. ...hopefully RISC-V will save us from this nightmare.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  Ha - no. Absolutely not. I don't know where this total myth came from that RISC-V is open source therefore implementations will be better. RISC-V is just an ISA (Instruction Set) that anyone can use, but what people use it in, and how they use it, is not specified and does not have to be open source. Apple could take RISC-V, plop it in their iPhone, and release it tomorrow in a processor that only boots Apple-signed code and requires proprietary firmware without any issue whatsoever. Intel could literally release a Core i5 with a RISC-V instruction set and an Intel ME built-in, no problem. Where the hope mainly comes from is small chip developers like SiFive, who make many of their drivers and such open-source. But that's only if you buy from vendors like them - if you implement your own RISC-V core, there's no requirement that the drivers or firmware be open-source for it, in any way. You might say that's a missed opportunity. I say RISC-V wouldn't have caught on otherwise.
  - intelVISA 4y ago
    Ofc, as you mentioned RISC-V is simply an open-source ISA; however, it is arguably the groundwork for chips independent of Intel/AMD.
  - justinclift 4y ago
    > Where the hope mainly comes from is small chip developers like SiFive, who make many of their drivers and such open-source. But that's only if you buy from vendors like them ... So, you're saying it is possible (or will be down the track...) as long as things are bought from SiFive or a similar OSS-friendly place. That's still a large improvement over the current situation, even if other vendors take different, locked down approach.
  - evilos 4y ago
    So... you're saying someone could (but not necessarily will) save us using RISC-V. Seems like a necessary precondition to it.
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    > I don't know where this total myth came from that RISC-V is open source therefore implementations will be better. The hope is that (unlike x86/ARM) you will be able to purchase core designs from people who aren't sockpuppets. RISC-V will at least let people choose between which backdoor they want installed, which is an upgrade from a status quo of "All Your TCP Traffic Belongs To U.S.". It's not exactly Superman, descending from the skies to deliver us from dystopia. But it's certainly a better path than letting ARM dominate any more of our chip landscape.
    - walterbell 4y ago
      > The hope is that (unlike x86/ARM) you will be able to purchase core designs from people who aren't sockpuppets. It also lowers the barrier to entry for new/rebranded sockpuppets, but having choices is a step in the right direction.
  - MisterTea 4y ago
    > Where the hope mainly comes from is small chip developers like SiFive, who make many of their drivers and such open-source. But there are still roadblocks as they likely bought the memory controller from a 3rd party as an IP block they drop into their chip. This means the bring up procedure for the memory controller is proprietary and delivered in blob form to be loaded into the black box ip. Likely the same for other 3rd party ip blocks as developing this stuff from scratch is very difficult and time consuming. Especially for critical hardware like memory controllers. This makes opening the platforms firmware just as tricky as any other chip from $bigvendor. This makes full top to bottom security audits difficult or impossible.
  - RobotToaster 4y ago
    It's still an improvement over x86, where anyone who manufactured an alternative would be sued into oblivion by intel for patent infringement.
    - sprash 4y ago
      Next year all x86_64 patents will expire. From then on everybody can make a IME/PSP/Pluton-free x86_64 chip. This makes RISC V completely obsolete since the x86 ecosystem is obviously much more mature.
      - tmtvl 4y ago
        X86 may be mature but I think the M1 has shown that there is plenty of potential for improvement. I know M1 is ARM instead of RISCV, but there may yet be ways to get better chips. That said, the hardware we have is really good, it's just the software side that is a complete garbage heap.
        smoldesu 4y ago
        Apple Silicon was an interesting move when you look at it from a numbers perspective. The M1 is a really impressive chip, but AMD had competitive x86 hardware that was out on the 7nm node. It benchmarked ~10% slower (the 4800u did, at least), consumed more power (25w max vs 15w max) and ran equally as hot as M1, but it did make me wonder - could AMD have made an M1-class chip if TSMC sold them the 5nm silicon they needed? It's hard to say, and arguably the Zen process wasn't (and still isn't) competitive with Apple's process enhancement. Still though, AMD seems convinced that x86 can compete against modern RISC ISAs. They aren't far away from proving themselves right, honestly.
        wmf 4y ago
        M2 and Ryzen 7000U will both be on TSMC N5 with similar RAM, etc. It will be very interesting to see the comparisons.
      - smoldesu 4y ago
- midislack 4y ago
  In the future, buying Chinese designed and made RISV-V will be the way to assure yourself that there’s no extra NSA garbage in there.
RunSet 4y ago
But according to Intel it exists to provide functionality that is desired by hardware owners. Big "Look what you made me do" energy.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > "functionality that is desired by hardware owners" We hear this all the time don't we? Claims that something is; "Because people want it". "Markets demand it". But we see absolutely no evidence of them whatsoever, this mythical mass of people clamouring for features that are strangely aligned with the things big-tech suppliers and manufacturers wish ti push and get to simply assert that "people want". We like to think of ourselves as "evidence based, rational society" We'll happily hold governments, scientific and health research to a high standard of evidence. Even Wikipedia articles demand "citation needed". Show us those people! Back up your claims Intel.
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    I feel similar with 5G. I don't know anyone who was actually demanding 5G speeds from their phone, or excited about it. Technically it's very cool, but I'm unsure it actually is enabling end users to do something they could not. From my experience, I actually must disable 5G. The 4G network in my area actually works well enough in all circumstances. The 5G network is all-or-nothing. I either wind up with incredible speeds or completely unusable.
    - generalizations 4y ago
      Is the end user actually the market this is aimed at? All we really know is that 5G and the Intel ME are endeavors that are expected to make a profit. But who wants this enough to pay for it? Someone does. If not the mass market consumer, then who?
      - cedilla 4y ago
        In the case of 5G, telcos love it. It's vastly less expensive to run than any lower G, both in cities and the countryside. That interest even aligns with end users' interest.
smolder 4y ago
Depending on the motherboard it can be very hard, pretty easy, or very easy. For my one motherboard that isn't covered by me-cleaner due to the newness, I verifiably turned off ME the "pretty easy" way: By downloading the latest bios from gigabyte, opening it in Intel's CSME tools (there are download links on some forums geared towards bios modding), flipping the unlabeled "reserved bit" which turns on "high assurance platform mode", and then flashing that bios .bin, also with Intel's tools. I believe some motherboards won't let you flash the modded bios if it's cryptographically unsigned or something like that, which is good for other reasons... but I haven't run into it myself. I've disabled ME on a couple of supermicro boards too, using me-cleaner, since they were supported. (What I consider the "very easy" method.) edit: Sibling poster is right that it can't be fully disabled. I do assume it's effectively disabled when it no longer appears in device manager and Intel's ME inspection tools show it as disabled.
chasil 4y ago
This does not and cannot "fully disable" the ME subsystem on modern CPUs. A small remnant is left operational - without it, a PC shuts down after 30 minutes (this is well-known). The Core 2 Duo/Quad architecture was the last iteration where the ME subsystem could be entirely removed. I posted two BIOS images on this link for old HP machines. They can easily be flashed from within the booted bios without much hassle. Looking for the link... Found it on Bing of all places! https://github.com/corna/me_cleaner/issues/233 https://github.com/corna/me_cleaner/issues/233
- tomxor 4y ago
  > The Core 2 Duo/Quad architecture was the last iteration where the ME subsystem could be entirely removed. Yeah, but unfortunately intel also didn't bother providing microcode patches for meltdown on those chipsets "because to old" by some arbitrary definition of "old".
  - chasil 4y ago
    These are vulnerable to Meltdown, and the page table isolation patches are required to secure kernel memory. These do involve a performance hit, so I'd recommend Core-2 Quad 9550s as an upgrade for a minimally-usable machine. However, these are not SMT/hyperthreaded, so many of the Specter vulnerabilities do not apply. OpenBSD runs well enough on them, and these machines are likely what I trust most with this OS. Most Linux runs on these machines (RedHat 9 doesn't - requires an i3), but will pause on the mei_me module and look for a response from the ME that you have lobotomized; blacklist the related modules if you want to boot faster.
    - chasil 4y ago
      The well-known spectre-meltdown check says that my Q9650 is not vulnerable to Meltdown or Spectre 1-3. It is vulnerable to variant 3a, 4, Fallout, Zombieload, and and both RIDLs. https://github.com/speed47/spectre-meltdown-checker https://github.com/speed47/spectre-meltdown-checker
- etiam 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

Well, it's a very detailed guide how to dump contents of flash device, update and put it back. If the guide said "dump the flash" and "write back the flash" instead of the detailed instructions, and only described firmware manipulation steps in details it would be much shorter.

intelVISA 4y ago

Both absolutely insane and completely understandable. ...hopefully RISC-V will save us from this nightmare.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
Ha - no. Absolutely not. I don't know where this total myth came from that RISC-V is open source therefore implementations will be better. RISC-V is just an ISA (Instruction Set) that anyone can use, but what people use it in, and how they use it, is not specified and does not have to be open source. Apple could take RISC-V, plop it in their iPhone, and release it tomorrow in a processor that only boots Apple-signed code and requires proprietary firmware without any issue whatsoever. Intel could literally release a Core i5 with a RISC-V instruction set and an Intel ME built-in, no problem. Where the hope mainly comes from is small chip developers like SiFive, who make many of their drivers and such open-source. But that's only if you buy from vendors like them - if you implement your own RISC-V core, there's no requirement that the drivers or firmware be open-source for it, in any way. You might say that's a missed opportunity. I say RISC-V wouldn't have caught on otherwise.
- intelVISA 4y ago
  Ofc, as you mentioned RISC-V is simply an open-source ISA; however, it is arguably the groundwork for chips independent of Intel/AMD.
- justinclift 4y ago
  > Where the hope mainly comes from is small chip developers like SiFive, who make many of their drivers and such open-source. But that's only if you buy from vendors like them ... So, you're saying it is possible (or will be down the track...) as long as things are bought from SiFive or a similar OSS-friendly place. That's still a large improvement over the current situation, even if other vendors take different, locked down approach.
- evilos 4y ago
  So... you're saying someone could (but not necessarily will) save us using RISC-V. Seems like a necessary precondition to it.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  > I don't know where this total myth came from that RISC-V is open source therefore implementations will be better. The hope is that (unlike x86/ARM) you will be able to purchase core designs from people who aren't sockpuppets. RISC-V will at least let people choose between which backdoor they want installed, which is an upgrade from a status quo of "All Your TCP Traffic Belongs To U.S.". It's not exactly Superman, descending from the skies to deliver us from dystopia. But it's certainly a better path than letting ARM dominate any more of our chip landscape.
  - walterbell 4y ago
    > The hope is that (unlike x86/ARM) you will be able to purchase core designs from people who aren't sockpuppets. It also lowers the barrier to entry for new/rebranded sockpuppets, but having choices is a step in the right direction.
- MisterTea 4y ago
  > Where the hope mainly comes from is small chip developers like SiFive, who make many of their drivers and such open-source. But there are still roadblocks as they likely bought the memory controller from a 3rd party as an IP block they drop into their chip. This means the bring up procedure for the memory controller is proprietary and delivered in blob form to be loaded into the black box ip. Likely the same for other 3rd party ip blocks as developing this stuff from scratch is very difficult and time consuming. Especially for critical hardware like memory controllers. This makes opening the platforms firmware just as tricky as any other chip from $bigvendor. This makes full top to bottom security audits difficult or impossible.
- RobotToaster 4y ago
  It's still an improvement over x86, where anyone who manufactured an alternative would be sued into oblivion by intel for patent infringement.
  - sprash 4y ago
    Next year all x86_64 patents will expire. From then on everybody can make a IME/PSP/Pluton-free x86_64 chip. This makes RISC V completely obsolete since the x86 ecosystem is obviously much more mature.
    - tmtvl 4y ago
      X86 may be mature but I think the M1 has shown that there is plenty of potential for improvement. I know M1 is ARM instead of RISCV, but there may yet be ways to get better chips. That said, the hardware we have is really good, it's just the software side that is a complete garbage heap.
      - smoldesu 4y ago
        Apple Silicon was an interesting move when you look at it from a numbers perspective. The M1 is a really impressive chip, but AMD had competitive x86 hardware that was out on the 7nm node. It benchmarked ~10% slower (the 4800u did, at least), consumed more power (25w max vs 15w max) and ran equally as hot as M1, but it did make me wonder - could AMD have made an M1-class chip if TSMC sold them the 5nm silicon they needed? It's hard to say, and arguably the Zen process wasn't (and still isn't) competitive with Apple's process enhancement. Still though, AMD seems convinced that x86 can compete against modern RISC ISAs. They aren't far away from proving themselves right, honestly.
        wmf 4y ago
        M2 and Ryzen 7000U will both be on TSMC N5 with similar RAM, etc. It will be very interesting to see the comparisons.
    - smoldesu 4y ago
midislack 4y ago
In the future, buying Chinese designed and made RISV-V will be the way to assure yourself that there’s no extra NSA garbage in there.

RunSet 4y ago

But according to Intel it exists to provide functionality that is desired by hardware owners. Big "Look what you made me do" energy.

nonrandomstring 4y ago
> "functionality that is desired by hardware owners" We hear this all the time don't we? Claims that something is; "Because people want it". "Markets demand it". But we see absolutely no evidence of them whatsoever, this mythical mass of people clamouring for features that are strangely aligned with the things big-tech suppliers and manufacturers wish ti push and get to simply assert that "people want". We like to think of ourselves as "evidence based, rational society" We'll happily hold governments, scientific and health research to a high standard of evidence. Even Wikipedia articles demand "citation needed". Show us those people! Back up your claims Intel.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  I feel similar with 5G. I don't know anyone who was actually demanding 5G speeds from their phone, or excited about it. Technically it's very cool, but I'm unsure it actually is enabling end users to do something they could not. From my experience, I actually must disable 5G. The 4G network in my area actually works well enough in all circumstances. The 5G network is all-or-nothing. I either wind up with incredible speeds or completely unusable.
  - generalizations 4y ago
    Is the end user actually the market this is aimed at? All we really know is that 5G and the Intel ME are endeavors that are expected to make a profit. But who wants this enough to pay for it? Someone does. If not the mass market consumer, then who?
    - cedilla 4y ago
      In the case of 5G, telcos love it. It's vastly less expensive to run than any lower G, both in cities and the countryside. That interest even aligns with end users' interest.

smolder 4y ago

Depending on the motherboard it can be very hard, pretty easy, or very easy. For my one motherboard that isn't covered by me-cleaner due to the newness, I verifiably turned off ME the "pretty easy" way: By downloading the latest bios from gigabyte, opening it in Intel's CSME tools (there are download links on some forums geared towards bios modding), flipping the unlabeled "reserved bit" which turns on "high assurance platform mode", and then flashing that bios .bin, also with Intel's tools. I believe some motherboards won't let you flash the modded bios if it's cryptographically unsigned or something like that, which is good for other reasons... but I haven't run into it myself. I've disabled ME on a couple of supermicro boards too, using me-cleaner, since they were supported. (What I consider the "very easy" method.) edit: Sibling poster is right that it can't be fully disabled. I do assume it's effectively disabled when it no longer appears in device manager and Intel's ME inspection tools show it as disabled.

chasil 4y ago

This does not and cannot "fully disable" the ME subsystem on modern CPUs. A small remnant is left operational - without it, a PC shuts down after 30 minutes (this is well-known). The Core 2 Duo/Quad architecture was the last iteration where the ME subsystem could be entirely removed. I posted two BIOS images on this link for old HP machines. They can easily be flashed from within the booted bios without much hassle. Looking for the link... Found it on Bing of all places! https://github.com/corna/me_cleaner/issues/233 https://github.com/corna/me_cleaner/issues/233

tomxor 4y ago
> The Core 2 Duo/Quad architecture was the last iteration where the ME subsystem could be entirely removed. Yeah, but unfortunately intel also didn't bother providing microcode patches for meltdown on those chipsets "because to old" by some arbitrary definition of "old".
- chasil 4y ago
  These are vulnerable to Meltdown, and the page table isolation patches are required to secure kernel memory. These do involve a performance hit, so I'd recommend Core-2 Quad 9550s as an upgrade for a minimally-usable machine. However, these are not SMT/hyperthreaded, so many of the Specter vulnerabilities do not apply. OpenBSD runs well enough on them, and these machines are likely what I trust most with this OS. Most Linux runs on these machines (RedHat 9 doesn't - requires an i3), but will pause on the mei_me module and look for a response from the ME that you have lobotomized; blacklist the related modules if you want to boot faster.
  - chasil 4y ago
    The well-known spectre-meltdown check says that my Q9650 is not vulnerable to Meltdown or Spectre 1-3. It is vulnerable to variant 3a, 4, Fallout, Zombieload, and and both RIDLs. https://github.com/speed47/spectre-meltdown-checker https://github.com/speed47/spectre-meltdown-checker
etiam 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]