Nico Huber wrote: > First thing to understand is that the Intel ME is no spyware and nothing > evil per se. .. > FWIW, people mostly call it spyware or backdoor because they bought > a computer, didn't read the manual, and were later taken by surprise > when they learned what their computer can do. There are scary things, > that's true, but they are usually advertised (e.g. Remote Management, > Anti-Theft, these things are sold, not hidden).
I'd like to remind everyone of what I call "the ME book": Platform Embedded Security Technology Revealed ISBN: 9781430265719 http://www.apress.com/9781430265719 The book is essentially a collection of ME whitepapers to make Intel's customers feel good about Intel platforms. It provides fairly good insight into the ME, functionally and conceptually, and while it doesn't include a detailed roadmap the book still shows a general direction for the ME into the future. Perhaps most importantly, the book makes very clear who Intel's customer is, or isn't, like in my favorite quote from page 165 at the start of the "Trust Computing" chapter: "The owner of a platform is not always the one to protect." I celebrate this honesty. This helps clarify that Intel platforms are not meant to be controlled by, and to protect, their owners. Which may also explain why some Intel platforms capabilities have never been communicated to prospective platform owners in a very clear and understandable way. I think people quite justifiably feel betrayed by the many layers of marketing BS about vPro and AMT. Intel platforms clearly optimize for an interest other than that of platform owners. Intel may not actively hinder accidental alignment of those different interests, but it's clear that these are products not made for you, the owner, you're just the sucker paying for them. I can completely understand that people disagree. //Peter _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
