CPU back doors

>>60159003
Well Imagine modern processor,it is very strong thing and if you would use 0.5% of it as backdoor
you could use it to exploit system from hundreds of ways without noticable performance losses.

File: 1333124554614.gif (2MB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x200px

>>60159003
One iteration of backdoors being implemented in Intel CPUs has to do with all processors made since Sandy Bridge having a 3G radio right on the processor. This is a hardware feature to be used with Intel's Anti Theft 3.0 technology, however due to its nature, there is nothing stopping the connectivity being used for snooping and data interception.

Jeff Marek, director of business client engineering for Intel, acknowledged that the company’s Sandy Bridge” microprocessor, which was released in 2011, had “the ability to remotely kill and restore a lost or stolen PC via 3G.”

“Core vPro processors contain a second physical processor embedded within the main processor which has it’s own operating system embedded on the chip itself,” writes Jim Stone. “As long as the power supply is available and in working condition, it can be woken up by the Core vPro processor, which runs on the system’s phantom power and is able to quietly turn individual hardware components on and access anything on them.”

“This combination of hardware from Intel enables vPro access ports which operate independently of normal user operations,” reports TG Daily. “These include out-of-band communications (communications that exist outside of the scope of anything the machine might be doing through an OS or hypervisor), monitoring and altering of incoming and outgoing network traffic. In short, it operates covertly and snoops and potentially manipulates data.”

How do the back doors usually work? Do they call back to a cand c or do they allow for auth bypass?

>>60159164
So modern the popular CPUs (the one's without vpro) in intels lineup only contain the 3G radio?

Do we have evidence of nefarious use?

File: 1281483855560.gif (398KB, 400x325px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 400x325px

samefaggin to the max

File: 1356103228642.jpg (24KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 300x300px

>>60159344
>Do we have evidence of nefarious use?

The evidence of the existence of a device that is able to wake on WWAN as well as transmit any sort of data over WWAN is enough to justify its capability for misuse because all it takes is some reverse engineering and creative software to make use of such technologies. No matter the security around a given piece of technology, there are always ways around it. There has never been nor will there ever be "perfect security". Security merely keeps the less skilled away from any given system.

When it comes to network connections, if the user does not have complete control if a device is on a network or off of a network that device does not fully belong to the user. Adding in the fact that most consumer electronics today feature non-removeable batteries, it is not unreasonable to assume that a device that can be woken on WWAN and that always has a power source (or battery reserves even if a battery is "depleted", is designed to be used without the consent of the primary user.