Thread replies: 18
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
Anonymous
Intel ME Exploit: Every Platform from Nehalem to Kaby Lake 2017-05-01 08:58:11 Post No. 60164785
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Intel ME Exploit: Every Platform from Nehalem to Kaby Lake 2017-05-01 08:58:11 Post No. 60164785
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: trust us goyim.jpg (600KB, 1928x2174px) Image search:
[Google]
600KB, 1928x2174px
Intel ME Exploit: Every Platform from Nehalem to Kaby Lake
Anonymous
2017-05-01 08:58:11
Post No. 60164785
[Report]
https://semiaccurate.com/2017/05/01/remote-security-exploit-2008-intel-platforms/
>The short version is that every Intel platform with AMT, ISM, and SBT from Nehalem in 2008 to Kaby Lake in 2017 has a remotely exploitable security hole in the ME (Management Engine) not CPU firmware.
https://security-center.intel.com/advisory.aspx?intelid=INTEL-SA-00075&languageid=en-fr
Thank you Intel, truly our Greatest Ally™
>>
>This vulnerability does not exist on Intel-based consumer PCs.
>>
>install backdoor in hardware
What could possibly go wrong...
>>
>>60164879
And I definitely trust them on that!
>>
>>60164879
that damage control...
>>
>>60165037
>>60165053
If you have evidence that this exploit applies to consumer PCs, please present it. Until then, you can fuck off.
>>
>>60164785
Intelfags and gaymerbabbies BTFO
I REPEAT
B T F O
T
F
O
THEY WILL NEVER RECOVER FROM THIS
N E V E R
>>
>Believing the lies of AMD asslicker Demerjian
>any year
>>
xfw all Intel shilling is performed by Intel themselves remotely exploiting their cpus with users even unaware that there are posts on 4chin appearing from their IPs
>>
Friendly reminder that me_cleaner exists, if you were smart enough to stick with an older Intel platform instead of giving the jews your money you're safe.
>>
https://security-center.intel.com/advisory.aspx?intelid=INTEL-SA-00075&languageid=en-fr
>This vulnerability does not exist on Intel-based consumer PCs.
AYYMDPOORFAGS, DUMBER THAN DUMB :^)
>>
>>60164785
>security (((exploit)))
>>
File: 1464214610288.jpg (72KB, 680x545px) Image search:
[Google]
72KB, 680x545px
>>60164785
SHUT IT DOWN
>>
>>60164785
I've seen stories on this for years. Intel doesn't give a shit.
>>
>>60165440
You didn't, why should I?
>>
>This vulnerability does not exist on Intel-based consumer PCs.
Here's a list of Intel CPUs with vPro (SMT): https://ark.intel.com/Search/FeatureFilter?productType=processors&VProTechnology=true
There are consumer CPUs on that list.
According to their mitigation guide (https://downloadmirror.intel.com/26754/eng/INTEL-SA-00075%20Mitigation%20Guide%20-%20Rev%201.1.pdf), a local attacker can gain "system privileges" even if SMT is disabled, so long as the LSM service is running on your machine. Does anyone know how this LSM service gets installed in the first place? Does Windows install this automatically when it detects an ME-enabled CPU?
>>
So every CPU that has vPro according to ark is vulnerable? And now I have to wait for my mobo manufacturer to ship a BIOS update to fix it?
Thread posts: 18
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2