News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Intel and ME, and why we should get rid of ME by amluto on Saturday June 11, 2016 @02:10AM (#11882308)
> It's known to be used for DRM.

Better citation needed. AFAIK the ME has never been used for DRM. It's supposedly used to implement TPM 2.0 aka PTT, but AFAIK that has never been used for DRM either.

Re:Intel and ME, and why we should get rid of ME by comex on Saturday June 11, 2016 @04:11AM (#11882607)
PAVP (Protected Audio-Video Path, which has gone by other names), as described in the FAQ entry, is a real thing, albeit without any public documentation whatsoever other than acknowledging that it exists - implemented in ME and used by some commercial video DRM implementations. Not sure what kind of citation you want, but it's briefly mentioned in this presentation about reverse engineering ME:

https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/codeblue_jp/igor-skochinsk...

Re:Intel and ME, and why we should get rid of ME by pdkl95 on Saturday June 11, 2016 @03:15AM (#11882455)
SGX is the other feature needed for DRM. Just read Intel's own documentation for SGX; it's all about creating a Trusted Computing environment, using the old Palladium/NGSCB sense of "trusted".
Re:Intel and ME, and why we should get rid of ME by ogn3rd on Saturday June 11, 2016 @09:57AM (#11883447)
ME also controls the feature set available to the storage controller. I.E. whether or not it can support RAID 0, 1, 5 natively. Its features can be updated via BIOS firmware, which has to correspond to whats baked into the CPU. It can be bypassed using a special version of BIOS firmware in combination with a cpu with the right fuses blown. It almost takes an act of god to get all those things, even in their lab, when you're getting paid to test it.
Re:Intel and ME, and why we should get rid of ME by amluto on Sunday June 12, 2016 @09:36PM (#11891252)
Really? That surprises me.

AFAICT Intel's desktop RAID tech literally just remaps PCI vendor and device ids (which is a wee bit more complicated with NVMe / AHCI over SATA Express). The boot process was an option ROM and is presumably now baked into UEFI. The driver does the rest.

I can imagine that a couple bits in ME tell the UEFI blob and the driver which feature set to enable. Is there more?