I also read in details some of the emails from the previous threads. I downloaded SCSDiscovery tool: https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/26691/Intel-SCS-System-Discovery-Utility and ran it on my notebook.
I got as response a bunch of nonsense info (basically, it failed everywhere) : C:\Program Files\Intel_SCS_Discovery_11.1.0.75>type SCSDiscoverylog_DESKTOP-@@@@@@@_2017-05-03-06-15-18.Log 2017-05-03 06:15:19:(INFO) : ACU Configurator , Category: HandleOutPut: Starting log 2017-05-03 06:15:19 2017-05-03 06:15:19:(INFO) : SCSDiscovery, Category: -SystemDiscovery-: DESKTOP-@@@@@@@: Discovering the System information... 2017-05-03 06:15:33:(WARN) : SCSDiscovery.exe, Category: System Discovery: System Discovery finished with warnings: System Discovery failed to get data from some of the interfaces on this system. (0xc00027ff). Failed to get data from the OS Registry interface. (0xc0002840). Failed to read the registry value (Primary DNS suffix). (0xc0001f52). Failed to open the registry Key (SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\LMS). The system cannot find the file specified. (0xc0001f50). The registry key not found.(SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\LMS) (0xc0001f58). Failed to get data from the GetDNSLookupName interface. (0xc0002842). Failed to retrieve the host onboard IPv4 IP (please check the LAN settings). (0xc0002836). 2017-05-03 06:15:33:(INFO) : SCSDiscovery, Category: Exit: ***********Exit with code 32 - Intel(R) AMT operation completed with warnings: Details: Success. System Discovery finished with warnings: System Discovery failed to get data from some of the interfaces on this system. (0xc00027ff). Failed to get data from the OS Registry interface. (0xc0002840). Failed to read the registry value (Primary DNS suffix). (0xc0001f52). Failed to open the registry Key (SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\LMS). The system cannot find the file specified. (0xc0001f50). The registry key not found.(SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\LMS) (0xc0001f58). Failed to get data from the GetDNSLookupName interface. (0xc0002842). Failed to retrieve the host onboard IPv4 IP (please check the LAN settings). (0xc0002836). C:\Program Files\Intel_SCS_Discovery_11.1.0.75> Not surprised, since I do NOT have AMT capabilities (I have 1.5MB ME series 9). Zoran On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:56 PM, Vadim Bendebury <[email protected]> wrote: > I wonder if anyone ever completely trusted AMT - maybe some naive > excessive cool-aid drinkers :) > > -vb > > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:27 AM, ron minnich <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I wonder if anyone is going to completely trust AMT after this problem. >> It goes back almost 10 years. So for all those users who had it on for >> almost 10 years, the question becomes, how much did we lose and when did we >> lose it? The answer? We'll never know. Are we still owned? We don't know. >> Can we actually trust any reflash procedure, if the ME is owned while we >> try to reflash? Well, I hope so, but how can we know? >> >> It's a worrisome situation. >> >> ron >> >> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:01 AM Patrick Georgi via coreboot < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Semi-Accurate only claims accuracy according to what's on the box. The >>> official documentation of the issue can be found at >>> https://security-center.intel.com/advisory.aspx?intelid=INTEL-SA-00075 >>> >>> It looks like a software bug in the AMT firmware. Therefore: >>> - No AMT (eg on non-business consumer devices) -> no (bug | exploit). >>> - Present but disabled AMT (eg. on business devices without AMT >>> enrollment) -> no (bug | exploit). (although there's apparently a way >>> to enable AMT unsupervised under some circumstances with some level of >>> local access. or something.) >>> >>> >>> Patrick >>> >>> 2017-05-02 19:31 GMT+02:00 John Lewis <[email protected]>: >>> > https://semiaccurate.com/2017/05/01/remote-security-exploit- >>> 2008-intel-platforms/ >>> > >>> > The article says "all" Intel boards since 2008 are locally vulnerable >>> > (ME exploit), but the Intel advisory (linked within) says consumer >>> > devices are okay. >>> > >>> > What the article says about even low end devices still having the >>> > features albeit turned "off" rings true to me, based on stuff I've read >>> > here and elsewhere. What's your take (bearing in mind the technical >>> > details aren't available, yet)? >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > coreboot mailing list: [email protected] >>> > https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Google Germany GmbH, ABC-Str. 19, 20354 Hamburg >>> Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der Gesellschaft: >>> Hamburg >>> Geschäftsführer: Matthew Scott Sucherman, Paul Terence Manicle >>> >>> -- >>> coreboot mailing list: [email protected] >>> https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot >> >> >> -- >> coreboot mailing list: [email protected] >> https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot >> > > > -- > coreboot mailing list: [email protected] > https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot >
-- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] https://mail.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
