Intel Confirms Vulnerability In Intel AMT/ME

>>60168584
IT'S HAPPENING

i'm too retarded to know if this effects me or not
i've been using my i3-6100 skylake cpu for around a year completely out of the box no changes at all
does this affect me?

>>60168745

Step 1: Determine if you have an Intel® AMT, Intel® SBA, or Intel® ISM capable system: https://communities.intel.com/docs/DOC-5693. If you determine that you do not have an Intel® AMT, Intel® SBA, or Intel® ISM capable system then no further action is required.

Step 2: Utilize the Detection Guide to assess if your system has the impacted firmware: https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/26755. If you do have a version in the “Resolved Firmware” column no further action is required to secure your system from this vulnerability.

fuck offfff you're just lazy

File: Promotion+Ads+of+SNSD+at+Intel+exhibition+in+Taiwan+%5B11.02.13%5D+%285%29.jpg (232KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 800x1200px

>>60168745
>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. If this isn’t scary enough news, even if your machine doesn’t have SMT, ISM, or SBT provisioned, it is still vulnerable, just not over the network. For the moment. From what SemiAccurate gathers, there is literally no Intel box made in the last 9+ years that isn’t at risk. This is somewhere between nightmarish and apocalyptic.

https://semiaccurate.com/2017/05/01/remote-security-exploit-2008-intel-platforms/

Is is a Intel Box?

Was it made any time during the last 9 years?

>>60168757
eh whatever
honestly i don't care i'm gonna continue browsing porn now

>>60168584
SNSD aged like milk.

>>60168584
I wouldn't take advantage of their vulnerabilities if you know what i mean

>>60168745
here

i just checked my cpu specs and it doesn't have that gay vPro stuff so i'm p sure i'm ok

File: 1492346432398.jpg (1MB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x1500px

>>60168925
WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT TAEYEON?

You did not just try to say that about princess Taeyeon, did you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVUqLBRQom8

> tfw amd

FEEEEEELS GOOD

File: w_500.jpg (44KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x333px

>>60168757

>The Intel® SCS – System Discovery utility is a standalone executable (SCSDiscovery.exe)

>Massive security vulnerability
>Only way to check is an .exe

(((Intel))) = botnet, confirmed.

File: happy.png (79KB, 444x560px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 444x560px

>>60168584
tfw you can still escape the otherwise inevitable botnet because you have the option to just switch to an older PC when it starts getting really bad

Options are now 10+ year old Intel laptops or AMD laptops. Ryzen Mobile needs to come out.

http://www.meshcommander.com/meshcommander

In an effort to make Intel® AMT easier to use, to support cross platform and over the Internet usages, we are building a new version of the MDTK that is fully written in JavaScript. There are many advantages in doing this, but above all, it just makes a lot of sense. With HTML5 being very capable, it's a lot easier for administrators to use web applications that interact with Intel AMT within a browser, making the local installation of tools a thing of the past in some cases.

Below, we have a new version of Manageability Commander that is fully written in JavaScript and uses a new WSMAN stack, redirection stack along with remote desktop and remote terminal libraries. You can use this new version as-is or can download the source code and samples to build your own web based Intel AMT tools. Also look at the overview presentation and screen shots.

Finally.

I've always known that the shitty programs in the processor were buggy and vulnerable, but now we have factual confirmation.

Finally.

NEGATIVE RINGS REEEEE

>tfw Penryn

File: 1492831980248.jpg (99KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1280x720px

STALLMAN WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG

>>60168584
Coorect link for mitigation guide is
https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/26754/INTEL-SA-00075-Mitigation-Guide

File: just.jpg (127KB, 600x1266px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 600x1266px

>>60170914
You mean all alone?

>>60168584
is that morning musume?

>>60169187
seriously I don't even

>>60168774
>Was it made any time during the last 9 years?
jesus christ intel

just

>>60170914
like that's a shock

>>60168584
STALLMAN WAS RIGHT

File: 1489103005792.png (162KB, 633x900px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 633x900px

>>60168584
Please delet dis

The interesting question now is will AyyMD ride this and make PSP more security-friendly?

File: 1493664956366.jpg (20KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 620x349px

>>60169163
Stop buying AMD.

>>60171189
JUST

Does this mean Pentium 4 is safe to use?

>>60171282
regarding the OP vulnerability: yes. Many 775 chipsets are fine too.

Intel ME is an old tech and affects 775 socket: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_AMT_versions

>>60171189
Stop supporting thieves and conmen.

>>60168745
>This vulnerability does not exist on Intel-based consumer PCs.

No.

>>60171295
Are the vulnerabilities that exist in old chipsets of greater or lesser concern than AMT?

>>60171350
Check it out yourself:
https://security-center.intel.com/advisories.aspx

I don't know whether you will find everything there.

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

>>60171373
What is "consumer PC"?

>>60171380
Literally anything that isn't a Xeon.

>>60171373
>>60171380
>>60171398

Look up your processor on Google and click the ark.intel link. Look for "Intel® vPro™ Technoloy"

If no, you're fine. If yes, worry. Testing on the 2500K, 3770K, and 6700K and none of them have it.

>>60171398
Nope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_AMT_versions

>>60171373
>the vulnerability covers from Nehalem to Kabylake CPUs.

>Kaby Lake Xeons
>existing

>>60171372
That's a lot of reading, anon. What's the short answer?

>>60171410
>read it for me

>tfw rolling a Q9550

Haha I knew sticking on my old Duos and Celeron would pay off!

>>60169187
It isn't the only way to check it, if you bother to read the PDF.

>>60171404
>look up my i7-4770 on ark.intel
>vPro: Yes
>fuck
>run scsdiscovery
><IsAMTSupported>False</IsAMTSupported>
I don't know what to believe anymore.

>>60169163
>>60169947
Here a disturbing question:
Does AMD CPUs have similar problems that we simply don't know about?

>>60171728
The CPU supports vPro, but motherboard isn't. You'll need a special business chipset which enables IPMI-like capabilities.
I think Thinkpads support vPro, by the way.

The Register calls this a RED ALERT!

> These insecure management features have been available in various, but not all, Intel chipsets for nearly a decade, starting with the Nehalem Core i7 in 2008, all the way up to this year's Kaby Lake Core parts. Crucially, the vulnerability lies at the very heart of a machine's silicon, out of sight of the operating system, its applications and any antivirus.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/01/intel_amt_me_vulnerability/

From what I gather you need both a motherboard and a CPU with vPro support for this to be exploited.

The funny thing is that you apparently need to get the _motherboard_ vendor to give you a firmware patch. With all the motherboards that has support for this produced the last decade.. there's going to be a lot of unpatched motherboards out there.

I mean.. anyone really expect firmware patches for 4-5 year old motherboards?

>backdoor feature can be used as a backdoor

And this is a shocker why exactly?

>>60168584
Article literally says

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

>>60171971
Can't the feature just be disabled in the processor?

>>60172010
No because it is a gov backdoor.

>>60171971
It's most likely that any motherboard vendor that is not supporting a board anymore probably doesn't have vPro enabled on that board.

Definitely a serious issue for corporations but it seems that most of the fear mongering about it around these parts ended up just that, fear mongering with nothing for us to worry about because we don't buy motherboards with the support.

What exactly could someone do with the vulnerability?

What exactly would it give to a virus that it can't do already?

>>60172076
Complete control of everything on your system remotely while hidden from every piece of software running on your system.

>>60172076
Direct memory access from the firmware.
No software can protect you.

>>60172076
With virus you have to actually infect computer before it can work. This is a remote vulnerability. This is something that lets, among other things, to plant a virus into the computer.

>>60172076
>What exactly could someone do with the vulnerability?
Anything, seriously

>An extreme vulnerability that remained undetected for almost 10 years
Lmao Intel

>>60172340
Hmmm it's almost like it was a deliberately installed backdoor.

>>60172306
But a firmware update can.

>>60172406
Yeah, I don't know how that will be distributed and delivered to millions of critical servers though...

>>60171923
Steamroller, Excavator, and Ryzen all have a similar thing called the Platform Security Processor. AMD has considered open sourcing it for use with coreboot though. Which will probably allow disabling it on at least Ryzen.

>>60172340
>>60172388
>undetected
It's been known for years, Intel refused to patch it. The fact they're coming out now in a panic means malware finally exploited it.

I am fucked, I have an X220 and my desktop PC uses an i5 4460.

It's sad. SAD.

http://www.fudzilla.com/news/processors/43537-latest-intel-security-exploit-affects-nehalem-through-kaby-lake
Intel security is compromised big time
Vulnerability level similar to Heartbleed (OpenSSL) in 2014
Intel has just patched a security vulnerability that affects all of its desktop and notebook platforms from Nehalem in 2008 to Kaby Lake in 2017, with a higher degree of vulnerability for users on Intel vPro systems.
The vulnerability, which our friend Charlie at SemiAccurate has been trying to get the company to fix for nearly five years now, affects every Intel platform with AMT, ISM and SBT. The list includes every desktop and notebook platform Intel has released since first-generation Core series Nehalem processors in 2008 through the 7th-gen Kaby Lake processors currently on the market.
In Intel's May 1st security advisory, any machine can allow an attacker to “gain control of the manageability features provided by these products” either locally or remotely. On the local end, Intel says “an unprivileged network attacker could gain system privileges to provisioned manageability
Even if a machine does have AMT, ISM or SBT provisioned, it is still classified as being locally vulnerable to attack but not remotely vulnerable.

http://thehackernews.com/2017/05/intel-server-chipsets.html

File: ring0.webm (333KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 480x480px

Is this still the ring0 vulnerability that was detected in 2008-2009-ish?

>>60173951
>The fact they're coming out now in a panic means malware finally exploited it.

or you know, they have a fuckton of patched ICs to sell
maybe you can even get 10% off if you bring your old cpu

>not riding the intc since $19
as if you don't even want to get rich

>>60169947
8350 isnt 10 years old and still works well. Also ppc still isnt botnet. And in the worst case scenario we can always use cellbe

I bought all intel cpus for my family and me. All of them were made during the last 9 years.
What do I have to do to be safe? As simple as possible please.

>>60174610
>What do I have to do to be safe? As simple as possible please.
you have to research. how did you not know about this anyway?

>>60174487
>in worst case scanario we can use a arch that isn't produced at all, that's also just an in-order PPC core with some really slow vector units hamfistedly attached.
I'd rather be vulnerable than use Cell.

File: 10753751_476664265870387_208944310_n.webm (986KB, 640x798px) Image search: [Google]

986KB, 640x798px

At least Intel has good taste in girls

>>60174610
For this to be exploited you need both CPU and motherboard that has this functionality. If you bought consumer motherboards and computers then you should not worry. If you have thinkpad or business dell series then you are in trouble, and you must wait for patches from those manufacturers.

>>60174646
it was a joke. But none the less it can still be used

ARM based home computers will be our salvation.

>>60174732
>ARM based home computers will be our salvation.
fucking hell do you even know what automated remote management is?

>>60174732
Unlikely.
They're super locked down and have security processing too...

Our best hope is nVidia trying on x86 again.
Intel will probably say no again (although, right now, they might just say yes to prevent the lawsuit) but nVidia could possibly win in a suit now due to Intel's shit security potentially harming US National Security.

>>60174799
>Our best hope is nVidia trying on x86 again.
l i s c e n c i n g

>>60174785
>>60174799
They will be our salvation in a way that we will have a lot of different producers to choose from. It will be easier to get one without botnet.

>>60174824
no it wont, you have no idea what youre talking about. its a standard feature now days, and having multiple competing architechtures is always a nightmare for devfelopement. were better off having the x86 licence be free and having competing companies producing the same chip. of course we can all see why that wont happen.

>>60174886
I'm >>60174799

I think it might actually happen - this itself might be the catalyst.
USA needs x86 for many aspects in government and beyond.
US Gov needs at least 2 suppliers under normal circumstances
US Gov *MUST* buy US designed CPUs
x86 Licensing has been a thorn in USGOV's side
A massive security issue might suspend sales from single vendor until their products can be revalidated.

It's high time for nVidia to try on x86 again - the courts might rule in their favor in the current climate, which would set a massive precedent, potentially underlying a massive change in x86 licensing.

Fuck ARM, if the cards are played right here, we could free x86 from its current chains...

>claim security bulletin
>the whole world installs malware v2

Has anyone actually seen the exploit? Where is that ball-licker Kerbs when you need him

>>60174968
>A massive security issue might suspend sales from single vendor until their products can be revalidated.
no it wont, the us gov wants RM to stay in every cpu for obvious reasons. theres no laws being broken so theres no incentive for the courts to rule in nvidias favour if they ever do decide to waste money on swift failure.

>>60175212
Parts of USGOV but they're not all the same nor are they allied to each other, except when they need to present a unified front.
x86 is a thorn in all depts sides but can't be ditched.

File: ?????.png (355KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 512x512px

>>60170914
Stallman is an idiot and a faggot queer communist. Terry was right

can they take their shirts off?

File: images.jpg (5KB, 188x236px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 188x236px

>>60170042
>Security software written in Javascript and HTML5

File: 1491874379734.jpg (25KB, 495x364px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 495x364px

>mfw there will be recall

>>60169122
she aged the worst

>>60170914
Stallman is always right.

>>60174886
>having multiple competing architechtures is always a nightmare for devfelopement.
Hey, think of it this way, more processors to support means more needed workforce meaning more jobs and MAYBE cheaper hardware.

>>60168584
>SNSD
What the fuck I love Intel now

>>60174968
Nvidia is going to have a fun time getting the license for AMD_64

File: test-fullpage.png (319KB, 930x1836px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 930x1836px

http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/48429.html
>How do I know if I have it enabled?
>Yeah this is way more annoying than it should be. First of all, does your system even support AMT? AMT requires a few things:

>1) A supported CPU
>2) A supported chipset
>3) Supported network hardware
>4) The ME firmware to contain the AMT firmware

>Merely having a "vPRO" CPU and chipset isn't sufficient - your system vendor also needs to have licensed the AMT code. Under Linux, if lspci doesn't show a communication controller with "MEI" or "HECI" in the description, AMT isn't running and you're safe. If it does show an MEI controller, that still doesn't mean you're vulnerable - AMT may still not be provisioned. If you reboot you should see a brief firmware splash mentioning the ME. Hitting ctrl+p at this point should get you into a menu which should let you disable AMT.

File: 20170502.png (5KB, 631x38px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 631x38px

>>60176005
FFFFFFUUCKING LENOVO THINKPADS

Anyone know where to find a list of '08-'09 chipsets that don't have ME?

>>60175987
Not really, AMD is pretty open to licensing.
It won't necessarily be cheap, but it'd be available.

>>60168584
Maybe they'll learn their lesson and start releasing CPUs without the ME, or at least a firmware update for the ME and BIOS that allows users to shut it off. I'm sure businesses aren't too happy.

Anyways, why are freetards always right?

>>60174686
Same fag that asked before here.. So I got a rampage v extreme and it had some AMT buñlshit in the options but I think everything was disabled. Should I check someting else besides that and disable it? The other vulnerale features will also show up in the bios as ISBT etc right? Or should i pay attention to some other stuff?
The MEI firmware cant be downgraded, at leadt on the RVE. If the other intel cpus are on non high end motherboards with no AMT options in the bios I souldnt be worried right? Or should I be even more worried because I habe no way to disable it?

Someone got hypervisor on my network a few months ago and I think this might be ehat they used to get in so im extremely paranoid with this. Thanks everyone,

>>60169567
And what do you do with all your data collected during all these years?

Why is there no outrage? No corporate lawsuits against intel? Just some articles and 2 threads on 4chan and that is it. There was bigger outcry when amd put an add into their drivers.

>>60176670
because no one's dumbed it down in a way that normies could understand it yet

>>60168584
>ALL INTEL CPU'S COMPROMISED
Well, unless you're running a Mac. Intel has confirmed for a decade that vPro and AMT aren't on the chips they put in Macs.

>>60176812
"INTEL HACKED YOUR COMPUTER"

>>60176836
lol, that doesn't make any sense. isn't Intel what's inside my computer? the people who made my computer hacked it? crazy conspiracy theories much lmao

Rihannaeatingacupcake.jpg

>>60168584
Who didn't see this coming?

>>60176831
They still include a management engine and a vulnerable EFI.

>>60176907
NO ITS REAL. THEY EVEN ADMITTED IT. THEY ARE FACING MASSIVE BLOWBACK FOR IT.

good thing us mac users are too smart for them. ;). *sips starbucks*

>>60171404
>i7 930
>i7 3610QM
>i7 4930K

All negative. And my X5450 is Core 2-based.

A sigh of relief.

>>60177036

>sigh of relief
>false sense of security
>you are actually still compromised by the always-on second cpu you can't even control

god_FUCKING_DAMN

I can't wait when I get off from this ride

I have a T61 with T7300 CPU.
How fucked am I?

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

/g/ can't read it seems but then again, all AYYMDPOOJEETS can't read in the first place

>>60171373
>damage control
You fucking moron the ME is on every chip

File: eheh...heh...ehh....png (180KB, 277x268px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 277x268px

>>60177094
A nervous laugh.

>>60171984
This is patently false, it exists but not necessarily through the network

>>60177396
"consumer PCs" being PCs designed and targeted specifically at consumers, not the PCs actually used by consumers. Plenty of business-targeted laptops with it enabled that are also sold to consumers.

Hey retards, just google the processor name and find the intel ark link. ctrl+f for vPro and if it says "No", then you don't have anything to worry about.
If it says "yes", then it's time to throw out dad's old work laptop and get a new one.
The patch is already released, you just need to update Intel Manageability Firmware to build 3xxx. If you work for a company and have the ability to do this yourself, then do it. If not, contact IT or don't worry about it because it's not your problem and if your IT department doesn't know, then they deserve to be fucked by it.

>>60177708
Everybody was worried of issues like this one when hardware manufacturers started putting useless over engineered bullshit in their hardware and firmware.
This particular intel technology had basically a (hopefully involuntary) hardware backdoor in it since 2008 and the problem was fixed only now. This is worrisome especially considering this is not going to be the last accident with superfluous hardware and firmware features.

>>60177928
I'm not saying it isn't an important issue on a larger scale, I just hate to see half of the posts read, "THE WORLD IS BURNING". This is just another event that people have to react to, not the apocalypse.

i5 2500k here, how fucked ?

>>60168584
does this affect atoms at all?

>>60168584
>Implying anyone of you neckbeard jobless neets have vpro processors in their system

>>60177708
Well, retard if there is no particular section for vPro, how can I know that there is no vPro when not even intel is unable to tell if there is one?
>>60178315
>what is /tpg/
Idiot

>>60178334
vpro processors are sold on business systems. Don't worry, you don't have one.

>>60178334

Literally only prebuilts have this problem.
Thats how you tell.

>>60178353
>>60178365
I have X220 and T61.
I can't find information on T7300, but X220 is fucked.

>>60178410
>x220 and t61
Enjoy your special snowflake problems

>>60178410
It's okay, the useful life of your consumer electronic is already approaching the end.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/leemathews/2017/05/02/intel-fixes-a-security-flaw-that-plagued-its-processors-for-years/#356dc74e3137

we fixed now?

>>60168584
>check processor
>ctrl+f vPro
>no
*sigh of relief*

>>60178455
nah hooking the ME is not fixed by this I think

File: just do ti.gif (964KB, 397x658px) Image search: [Google]

964KB, 397x658px

>>60178449
>>60178427
Only death can know peace from this hell.

I'm just waiting if they manage to get fusion nuclear powerplant working because then Helium will be cheap.

>>60168584
Any companies except Purism Librem working on open/secure hardware?

Thinking routers, e-readers, phones or cheap laptops.

>>60173951
>The fact they're coming out now in a panic means malware finally exploited it.
Or this backdoor was about to come to light anyway in the near future as it's in the CIA's shit that Wikileaks is realeasing piece by piece

>>60168584
Intel was a mistake

>>60168745
Basically you are only seen this on vpro CPUs, like latitudes and thinkpads

>>60171404
Only a handful of skus have vpro, mostly laptops, and all are oem integrated. If you have vpro your hardware have a vpro sticker.

>>60178955
I think a company dedicated to security could still theoretically secure their system against Intel ME, simply by creating a system which wraps the NIC, accessible through the BIOS menu. You can block ports at the hardware level, and Intel ME won't be able to do shit about it.

>>60171984
It depends on what you define as consumer. Some shit OEM walmart laptop wouldn't have the issue, but some consumer PCs definitely will. AMT isn't restricted to Xeons.

>>60168584
Yuri and Yoona are the best, just wanted to say that.

>>60171925
>I think Thinkpads support vPro, by the way.
fuk

>>60171406
>Kaby Lake Xeons
>existing
My Xeon E3-1240 v6 would like a word with you

>>60173894
You cannot equate a similar feature to having same implementation vulnerabilities. This is absurd.

>>60168745
>https://communities.intel.com/docs/DOC-5693.
thank you based i7 2630qm

>>60168584
>Intel Confirms Vulnerability In Intel AMT/ME
Why though?

File: 1391442963178.jpg (19KB, 500x323px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x323px

>>60168584
>tfw libreboot

File: hehe.jpg (29KB, 438x396px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 438x396px

>>60171446
>tfw Q6600

>HE HASNT REMOVED THE PROPRIETARY BOTNET

https://github.com/corna/me_cleaner/wiki/me_cleaner-status

File: intel-mei.jpg (25KB, 895x375px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 895x375px

>>60168584
FUCK YOU /g/, YOU TOLD ME THAT THINKPADS WERE SECURE! HOW THE FUCK DO I DISABLE INTEL ME??? I TRIED PRESSING CTRL-P DURING BOOT TIME AND GOT INTO THE PROVISIONING MENU, BUT THERE IS NO OPTION TO DISABLE THIS SHIT WTF!!!!!!

The CVE is: 2017-5689
Help me guys, the description says that the expoit works only on provisioned management engine. Does this means that I need to enable (provision) it? If it's unprovisioned then im good?

>ITT: linuxfags panic about "security"

>>60180669
Press the button to get to the BIOS and turn AMT off. We also told you to install trannyboot.

File: 2e8ae174141682774588669433_700wa_0.gif (494KB, 373x213px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 373x213px

>>60176054
I know ...

>>60177376
I think you're good, if I'm not mistaken it was produced around 2007 and the vulnerability only affects cpus produced from 2008 and up

>>60170914
Stallman only speaks of general truths. It's just convenient to ignore him

>>60180669
shieeeet

>>60182510
Yeah, I panic for nothing. I wasn't able to rationally think and check the architecture name and then check from this list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_CPU_microarchitectures

Now my next problem would be X220 with vPro. It would be quite embarrassing to leave my X220 airtight (no internet connection) and using T61 for my future studies.

>>60180679
AMT can be provisioned by an unprivileged local attacker. So if an attacker can run code on your system (by tricking you, or exploiting some other vulnerability) then they can gain ring -3 privileges with this exploit.

>>60170914
Well yeah, he knows his shit. It was only a matter in time before closed source network-enabled firmware running on negative rings was exploited. It's the perfect vulnerability.

>>60182765
You should check first from the command line if it is enabled with "lspci | grep MEI" unfortunately, my EliteBook has it

File: IMG_9850.jpg (164KB, 2100x1505px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 2100x1505px

>>60168584
Posting from my IBM X40 Thinkpad, I don't have this problem.

Still though, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA INTEL BTFO AND BANKRUPT FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!1one

>>60170042
Just Pajeet things...

>>60177708
What if I don't HAVE an IT department? Guess you didn't think of that, genius.

>>60182510
That's great, we can all just wildly dig in scrapyards for CPUs made prior to 2008 and we'll be fine.

Feels a bit like going backwards, doesn't it.

This whole thing really sucks because I wanted to set up AMT at work. On the bright side, almost nobody here is going to be affected.

>>60177708
You're only affected if AMT is provisioned or if you have Intel's LMS service installed and running. The former doesn't apply to you. It's not provisioned on your personal hardware. You'd know if it was because it's a pain in the ass to do. Maybe you have LMS installed for some reason if you've got a bunch of vendor installed shit-ware still on your machine, but it's very easy to remove. Just open a command prompt and run "sc config LMS start=disabled" or "sc delete LMS"

File: tmp_11546-1493322772356-1089550412.png (501KB, 739x931px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 739x931px

>>60186104
Sometimes you have to take one step back, to make two steps forward Anon-kun.

>>60186210
>This backdoor only works if you have it enabled.

retard.

>>60186267
Yes. The remote exploit only works if you have AMT provisioned.

>>60171971
RIP every single thinkpad still worth using.

>>60187191
The *60 and *200 series can all have ME disabled. The X220 received a firmware update in October of 2016, so Lenovo might still patch this.

>>60182861
What if you set it to "Permanently Disabled" in the BIOS? It's possible on some platforms.

>>60175172
I stopped reading his stuff after he got all high on himself and perceived a retaliatory ddos attack on his site as an attack on press freedom. Has his recent stuff been better?

File: Bp64bAy.jpg (36KB, 560x590px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 560x590px

>>60171243
Burch is beyond JUST

>>60168584

Doesn't this only effect idiots who purchased a OEM Desktop (excluding server administration here). And people who installed every driver and feature possible on their mobo disk? Like if you built your desktop, you'd have to go out of your way to install this software, even if running intel chip of the time and a board that supports it.

>>60177928
>(hopefully involuntary)
Anon, I...

>>60186104
You don't HAVE to utilize this new information and get a secure computer anon. If you're lazy or stupid you can just ignore the problem.

><FWVersion>9.0.30.1482
><IsAMTSupported>False
>Systems vulnurable:
>Intel® manageability SKU firmware versions >6.x.x.x
>–
>11.6.x.x with a build value less than 3000
what do? Just wait for gigabyte to update my h87 chipset or what?

>>60189899
Just use your emergency pre-ME era stinkpad until they update the firmware anon.

>>60168584
>Government backdoor can also be used by non-government
Hmmm... Who would have thought this would happen?

File: 140607 가족e스포츠페스티벌 AOA - 흔들려 혜정 직캠.mp4_20170503_125600.732.jpg (853KB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

853KB, 3840x2160px

>>60168584
AMD WINS AGAIN

>>60174274
Nah, this one is ring -3

File: 1491958654249.png (84KB, 653x726px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 653x726px

>>60168584
Wait for Cannonlake.

File: 1489911666347.png (28KB, 354x286px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 354x286px

>>60168584
Link to qt old song from SNSD (Made possible by Intel™)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBxW22JLUmg

>>60168584
>https://security-center.intel.com/advisory.aspx?intelid=INTEL-SA-00075&languageid=en-fr
>There is an escalation of privilege vulnerability in Intel® Active Management Technology (AMT), Intel® Standard Manageability (ISM), and Intel® Small Business Technology versions firmware versions 6.x, 7.x, 8.x 9.x, 10.x, 11.0, 11.5, and 11.6 that can allow an unprivileged attacker to gain control of the manageability features provided by these products. This vulnerability does not exist on Intel-based consumer PCs.

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

??

>>60190739
explain this, cocksuckers

File: 456546873.jpg (37KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 1280x720px

>>60190739
>>60190760
jews gonna jew
what did you expect of jewtel?

>>60188126
worse even, but for some reason people still give him stuff. Only guy on the net that people still co-operate with for some reason. Everyone else just self-publishes or leaks to some tiny website and then conglomerate webcorp picks it up.

ONE TWO THREE

>>60168584
No way!! A hardware backdoor can be used for malicious purposes??? Who could've possibly imagined such a thing???

So, what happens if you just don't install MEI drivers?

File: 1491056584900.png (1MB, 912x905px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 912x905px

>Failed to get data from the MEI interface. (0xc000283d). Failed to connect to the Intel(R) Management Engine Interface PTHI client. (0xc000001c).
>This system does not have Intel(R) AMT (or it is disabled in the Intel MEBX, or the correct drivers are not installed or enabled, or the current user does not have permissions to the drivers)

>>60190155
Stop gookposting.

>>60190155
Those look fast and expensive.

>>60193977
You do realize even if you don't have AMT enabled, the ME is running and likely has more vulnerabilities?

File: sales-training-to-be-the-damsel-in-distress.jpg (60KB, 550x314px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 550x314px

WE NEED SOMEBODY TO DO SOMETHING NYAAAAAA!!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBwS66EBUcY

>>60168584

why do chinks bleach there hair like that

>>60187191
My X40 is still good anon. It even has OpenGL graphics.

File: iyzVdAv.jpg (29KB, 509x355px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 509x355px

>>60200591
Why do they chisel off their jawbones or bury perfectly good cabbage and dead shrimp in the yard?

Nobody knows anon.

File: Screen Shot 2017-05-03 at 4.16.30 PM.png (24KB, 320x350px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 320x350px

>>60190155
How long since this guy's had succ?

>>60174274
Dunno what that is but this is basically a ring -3 or so vulnerability so probably not.

So are cpus that directly don't have vpro support affected? If vpro is 'collection of computer hardware technologies, including Hyperthreading, Turbo Boost 3.0, VT-x, VT-d, Trusted Execution Technology (TXT), and Intel Active Management Technology (AMT).' Does it mean having any of those puts me at risk? Or am I retarded? Also, does it need a mobo that supports this, or is it just enough to have the cpu?

File: jennifer-aniston-middle-finger.jpg (68KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 600x300px

>>60180417
>>>60168584 (OP)
>>tfw libreboot
Fuck I had to scroll way to far for this.

>>60201745
This particular exploit is just ME. But look into AMT because that is the same scary shit