Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway2048 | Hacker News Reader

throwaway2048

Its important to note, that Intel has a VERY strong incentive to downplay the seriousness of this problem. Other sources have indicated that its possible on any post 2008 Intel system, its just not possible remotely.

Since we don't know the exact nature of this exploit, things are extremely dangerous for ALL Intel systems right now.

View on HN

I'm trying to find out if this applies to enthusiast processors that lack vPro. I purchased my chip with this in mind. Any information would be appreciated.

https://www.orwell1984.today/no_vpro_for_me.html

"This vulnerability does not exist on Intel-based consumer PCs."

"There are several features that AMT provides that are present in consumer systems even though the ‘technology’ isn’t there. This is one of the arguments that SemiAccurate has had with Intel security personnel over the years, we have begged them to offer a SKU without the AMT hardware for just this very reason. Intel didn’t, the pressure to lock corporate customers in to their silicon was too high."

Intel is playing this down heavily. This seems to be locally exploitable on consumer chips. Correct me if that is wrong, please.

EDIT: I'm not one to give a shit about downvotes, but it would be nice if someone could actually respond to me with a legitimate retort instead of trying to bury this post. I am asking to be proved wrong for my own sanity. Let's be mature about this.

Basically you're asking us to prove a negative about undocumented proprietary firmware. Someone could spend years fully reverse-engineering ME firmware to prove these theories wrong, and then people would just say "but what about version N+1?"

Not really. The evidence currently points to all basically all commercial Intel chips in the last ~10 years being vulnerable to this.

In addition to correcting you about Intel's blatant lie, I was asking if anyone more qualified than me could confirm or deny whether it affects certain enthusiast chips that seem to lack certain vPro features.

My question was not about if consumer chips are affected, because they are if they have the ME engine. However, the enthusiast chips I reference supposedly do not even have a functioning ME system to reverse-engineer in the first place. Asking for confirmation of such by a qualified individual is reasonable and answerable.

From what I understand, the local exploit needs a manageable (vPro) system as well. Not just ME, but AMT running in ME.

I have confirmed through ARK that not only does my chip lack vPro, but it also lacks TXT, which I hadn't confirmed before. I consider TXT to be just as vulnerable as AMT / ME.

Feels good to know my sensibilities paid off. Worth every dollar.

Now I just get to sit back and watch the shit show unfold :)

The advisory says it doesn't affect consumer firmwares.

Please see my comment to your sister post.

Seems like it could be a risk to the GCP/AWSs of the world.

AFAIK Xeons don't have AMT/ISM/SBT and thus aren't affected.

Servers may be affected by the absolute shit firmware living in their Aspeed BMCs, however.

Many Xeon SKUs include the Management Engine, which at times has seemed to share many of the features of AMT/SBT/etc, but its unclear on the exact attack vector for this vulnerability.

Having said that, the ME is so opaque, the same type of vulnerability could easily exist.

There are Xeons with AMT, at least the 3400, possibly more.

edit: E3-1200 as well, same kind of application, single CPU workstation chip.

Both GCP/AWS already probably have (or had, if they were alerted before public disclosure) security teams probing their internal systems to see if they're vulnerable, and install firmware patches. The danger is more medium-to-large organizations whose internal clouds and desktop systems are impossible to patch at scale.

If remote management is used for servers, it's normally IPMI with a completely separate baseboard controller that has its own NIC connected to a physically separate network [although some boards cheap out on that, notably older INTEL boards, where the separate NIC is an option you have to buy].

No mainstream (2-way) server has AMT, anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com