Re:The hijacking flaw that lurked in Intel chips is worse th...
by CodeWriter23 on Sunday May 07, 2017 @12:28AM
(#14283856)
Interesting how this article steadfastly refers to the subsystem as AMT and never mentions Management Engine/ME. A deliberate ploy to redirect people away from discovering all the ME-disabling research and tech? Perhaps. This is what happens when "journalists" post copypasta from publicists.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The hijacking flaw that lurked in Intel chips is worse th...
by confounded on Sunday May 07, 2017 @01:32AM
(#14284015)
From the article:
> When AMT is enabled, all network packets are redirected to the Intel Management Engine and from there to the AMT. The packets bypass the OS completely. The vulnerable management features were made available in some but not all Intel chipsets starting in 2010, Embedi has said.
The vulnerability is in AMT, not ME (though I agree that the ME is an unnecessary security risk, and am well behind the current research to disable it).
Re:The hijacking flaw that lurked in Intel chips is worse th...
by khedoros1 on Sunday May 07, 2017 @01:27AM
(#14284003)
AMT's an optional component of the ME, it's the part that enables remote management, and it's a flaw in AMT that they're describing. It seems reasonable to talk about the part that has a problem (although it wouldn't have been unreasonable for them to mention that it's part of the IME, of course).
Re:The hijacking flaw that lurked in Intel chips is worse th...
by ars on Sunday May 07, 2017 @01:18AM
(#14283982)
I quote: "When AMT is enabled, all network packets are redirected to the Intel Management Engine"