On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 02:10:56 -0500 "J.B. Nicholson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > > now, it *just so happens* that someone recently discovered that the > > NSA has clearly had their fingers into intel processors... because > > they requested a DISABLE function of the ME back-door co-processor. > > > without such a disable function there would be absolutely no way > > > that > > the NSA could authorise Intel processors for use either on their own > > premises or for any government usage.... because the exact same > > feature they demanded could be used to spy ON THEM. > > > fucking ironic. > > Quite; does this disable function fully and completely disable all > attempts at using any ME functionality such that nothing can re-enable > the ME, or is this disablement somehow impermanent or more limited in > some way? > > I ask because I vaguely recall that someone (Purism, perhaps?) had > remote ME accesses disabled but still allowed local accesses. This > struck me as nearly useless because such an arrangement would allow > running a program to relay ME requests and responses over a network > connection (an ME proxy, basically). > BTW: Sorry this is so late, I've been catching up on my mail. Do you have a reference for the NSA disabling the ME? Thanks, David _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list [email protected] http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to [email protected]
