News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Intel's Remote AMT Vulnerability. Parent comment

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 ]