Intel's Remote AMT Vulnerability

Re:Intel's Remote AMT Vulnerability by Clownshoesms on Monday May 01, 2017 @08:31PM (#14243050)

Say you had an afflicted machine on the public internet, but completely firewalled in terms of IP, is this exploitable? I'm still not clear on how it happens.

Edit: Sorry read a bit deeper. Presumably this has to be enabled in the bios, but O/S level firewall won't help. Ack.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Intel's Remote AMT Vulnerability by mjg59 on Monday May 01, 2017 @08:35PM (#14243070)

Firewalled at which stage? OS-level firewalling will do nothing, but if your border is rejecting packets for port 16992 then only people on your local network will be able to attack you.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Intel's Remote AMT Vulnerability by hultner on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @06:26AM (#14245287)

Is there any reliable way to test this over the internet if I have a machine which I currently can't physically access?

Am I safe if it doesn't connect with telnet on 16992?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Intel's Remote AMT Vulnerability by Clownshoesms on Monday May 01, 2017 @08:36PM (#14243077)

Thanks. Didn't realize there's another big thread, will have a read.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Intel's Remote AMT Vulnerability by i336_ on Monday May 01, 2017 @08:47PM (#14243124)

Was curious, it's this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14237266

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Intel's Remote AMT Vulnerability by Clownshoesms on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @04:11AM (#14244775)

Sorry for not linking it, was in a rush.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Intel's Remote AMT Vulnerability by i336_ on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @04:15AM (#14244792)

Not at all a problem.

[ Parent | on HN ]