News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:How Purism avoids Intel’s Active Management Technology by fsflover on Sunday August 16, 2020 @03:10PM (#24180332)
Even though it`s true that ME is not 100% removed, most of it is.

https://puri.sm/learn/software-freedom-in-perspective/

Re:How Purism avoids Intel’s Active Management Technology by boring_twenties on Sunday August 16, 2020 @04:36PM (#24181075)
The part that can't be removed still has had critical security vulnerabilities, though.
Re:How Purism avoids Intel’s Active Management Technology by floatboth on Sunday August 16, 2020 @05:16PM (#24181403)
But how would anyone interact with that part?

If it has no NIC access and the OS doesn't have access to it because it's not hanging on PCIe anymore, so if it's only there for system bringup, it's essentially sealed off from the world.

Re:How Purism avoids Intel’s Active Management Technology by boring_twenties on Sunday August 16, 2020 @06:44PM (#24182017)
It might require physical access, as with https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/security-center/advi... but that's still pretty bad as it allows for rootkits completely undetectable from the OS environment.
Re:How Purism avoids Intel’s Active Management Technology by R0b0t1 on Sunday August 16, 2020 @03:19PM (#24180413)
ME hasn't been removed at all. The hardware is still on the machine.
Re:How Purism avoids Intel’s Active Management Technology by teddyh on Sunday August 16, 2020 @04:12PM (#24180832)
That’s a useless definition of “removed”; using that definition, ME can never be “removed” at all! But that’s not what we’re talking about here. A more useful definition would be to use “removed” as in “not a security problem anymore”.
Re:How Purism avoids Intel’s Active Management Technology by R0b0t1 on Sunday August 16, 2020 @04:14PM (#24180852)
> using that definition, ME can never be “removed” at all!

This is my point. It can't be removed. It will always remain a security problem.

Re:How Purism avoids Intel’s Active Management Technology by dongvsascript on Sunday August 16, 2020 @05:02PM (#24181277)
that's like saying having a flimsy house door lock lying in your kitchen drawer is a security problem.

you have hardware on the cpu no longer accessible by software. you have a mellanox network card the me can't talk to. it's there, in the kitchen drawer. it's no longer in the door -so not a security problem.

the 'issue' requires physical access to the machine, and for you to be logged in with an admin account. if someone is physically sitting next to your server and logged in as root, you have no security anymore. they don't need to break into anything, the can just run what they want already.

someone is in your car with keys in the ignition. you're saying they can steal your car by hacking the entertainment system because it's insecure.

Re:How Purism avoids Intel’s Active Management Technology by R0b0t1 on Sunday August 16, 2020 @05:09PM (#24181331)
No, this is more akin to having a flimsy plywood door with a plastic lock right next to your real one but acting like you've solved the issue by taping a "please don't use" sign over it.

Intel ME is still there. It is still potentially remotely configurable and remotely updateable. That those features are not advertised is irrelevant, they can be assumed to be there or easily added.

Re:How Purism avoids Intel’s Active Management Technology by dongvsascript on Sunday August 16, 2020 @07:36PM (#24182333)
'It is still potentially remotely configurable and remotely updateable.'

and there's the issue. it is literally not remotely anything, since in the stated configuration it is not possible to get to it unless you are physically sitting at your computer and logged in. you are making stuff up and saying the thing you made up is dangerous.

Re:How Purism avoids Intel’s Active Management Technology by yencabulator on Monday August 17, 2020 @09:47PM (#24194478)
Sure, but not using an Intel NIC is supposed to make it already not remote accessible, without all this work.

If ME is still involved in the system, it can still act as an undetectable permanent implant/rootkit, you just need to burn one 0day to reach it by breaking into the x86 part first.

Re:How Purism avoids Intel’s Active Management Technology by boring_twenties on Sunday August 16, 2020 @04:34PM (#24181061)
That definition doesn't change much, because the part that can't be removed can and will leave your system vulnerable to exploits like this one: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/security-center/advi...