<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>On 12/23/2016 03:13 PM, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:bancfc@openmailbox.org">bancfc@openmailbox.org</a>
wrote:<br>
</p>
<blockquote
cite="mid:4bed72f9fd2fc282c2f21cce3aa7842f@openmailbox.org"
type="cite">Seeing that many of you know a lot about Intel's ME I
wanted to ask a couple of things if its ok. <br>
<br>
* Is the ME network accessible on all Intel chips or only the vPro
ones with AMT? <br>
<br>
* I saw an interesting take on this in the link below, instead of
the usual FUD surrounding this topic whenever its mentioned. What
is your take on what he says? <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
- Every intel system from around 2008 on has ME. vPro is a module
loaded in to ME to provide various corporate manageability features
but every chipset is technically network accessible. I don't really
deal with desktop hardware anymore but AFAIK on intel's consumer
chipset (not Q/B) motherboards there are several network basic
manageability features that do not require vPro. - I will
investigate this and get back to you.<br>
<br>
"You value your privacy, so you run on a system with Core 2 Duo,
complete with all the errata? NX-disabling bugs, cache-attacks that
work from JavaScript, no SMEP, probably no VT-d, so say goodbye to
DMAR and any chance of DMA attack resistance (or VT-d without
interrupt remapping, so all but useless even if it is present).
You'll also be without AES-NI so side-channel attacks will be much
easier (AES has huge S-boxes), and without RDRAND, so early boot
will see crappy entropy (please don't bring up the RDRAND is evil
myth)."<br>
<br>
- I have a KGPE-D16 which has all those great features and 100%
libre firmware, you can even play the latest games on it with max
settings if you desire and the 62xx cpu works without microcode.<br>
<br>
- There is a world beyond x86
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.crowdsupply.com/raptor-computing-systems/talos-secure-workstation">https://www.crowdsupply.com/raptor-computing-systems/talos-secure-workstation</a>
or buy a POWER server from IBM and stick in a graphics card - very
high performance and available now.<br>
<br>
* He never figured that maybe AES-NI has some kind of fatal problem
and that's why "they" let us have it, physical access is FATAL and
if you are so concerned about side channel attacks you will build
some kind of shielding; besides any good crypto libs have
obfuscation.<br>
* An elite hacker.....who wastes time posting on public forums (If I
had the level of skill he claims to have I sure as shit wouldn't be
writing this email) and who uses machines that have ME, sure sure
but he uses version 11 so it is OK.<br>
* ME has the technical ability to be used to access your data
remotely, without a BMC addon (has he never heard of AMT iKVM? or
the remote ISO loading tools?)<br>
* He assumes that when he dumps and dis-assembles the firmware he is
receiving an honest version and not a "special" version with the
backdoor removed which could easily be done on a subverted system.<br>
<br>
"Intel wouldn't do this because it would be bad for optics"<br>
Every criminal thinks that they're going to get away with it.<br>
<br>
-----------<br>
ME isn't a backdoor directly (remotebackdoor.exe), it is simply a
great framework for a backdoor.<br>
The idea is that either you can simply use a one time exploit in the
operating system to root ME and gain an undetectable perma rootkit,
even if we assume intel has out best intentions at heart it is still
a massive vulnerability, or that there is a secret exploit
(intentional or unintentional) in ME to activate it via network and
load a special module, OR that with physical access you already have
a great backdoor hardware ready to go all you need is to re-write
the firmware.<br>
<br>
Paranoia:<br>
I believe that there is a "magic" network accessible ME backdoor
intentional or otherwise as it is a silver bullet for any intel
agency or criminal organization so it makes sense for them to try to
do it even if it isn't there by default there isn't anything
stopping a well funded group from subverting an OEM and adding an
incredibly subtle flaw in the networking controllers for special
customers such as the logistics division of a foreign military (no
fuel + no food = no army)<br>
Having ME onboard makes it much easier to do that, instead of having
to create from scratch a remote access ability you simply subvert
ME.<br>
<br>
Some other will chime in and elaborate on this but bottom line - it
is dangerous to have on your computer, it exists to take away
control from the user for DRM (PAVP) and someday soon intel will
patch the nerfing ability.<br>
By the way AMD ZEN/FM2 has PSP and some ARM has TrustZone.<br>
</body>
</html>