How Purism avoids Intel’s Active Management Technology

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]