On 08/29/2017 11:02 PM, Sandy Harris wrote:
> As I probably should have known, Qubes developers are already well
> aware of this. See for example:
> https://blog.invisiblethings.org/papers/2015/x86_harmful.pdf
Exactly.

To give a little more context:
 * Intel ME is a totally independent, totally opaque (officially at
least) stand-alone computer system attached to any recent x86/x86_64
chipset (reminds me of the Cordyceps "zombie fungi" family)
 * It is able to reach various devices deemed "dangerous" in a computer
system (network adapters, ram, input devices) in a way that is both
unnoticeable and uncontrolled by the host system
 * The software it runs can only be updated as a blob by customers, but
is signed and encrypted by Intel, so no insight nor customization is
available beyond some simple "variable-setting" tool
 * While it may be useful for remote/centralized
provisioning/maintenance of large corporate networks (citation needed,
perhaps), it has quickly grown very large and complex (hence, linearly
buggier)
 * The latest versions of ME are absolutely necessary for Intel-based
chipsets to perform basic boot functions (power management, initializations)
 * The dangers of this tool fall into two categories: intentional remote
administration backdoors and unintentional exploitable bugs, both of
which cannot be checked for nor ruled out without considerable effort in
accessing the software (which has already been, partially, done - but
yet, I don't expect anyone decapping a south bridge chip any time soon!)
 * The worst part is that this remote administration engine is
pre-installed into and (as of the latest versions) un-removable from any
recent Intel-chipset-based motherboard, even consumer-grade ones or
mobile-oriented ones (low cost tablets that are extremely unlikely to be
used by large corporations), prompting the question "is it really about
central administration/maintenance for corporate users?"


Because of this context it is usually regarded as a necessary evil, but
any security-minded Intel customer will try its best to disable as much
ME functionality as he/she can, hence the research that produced the
paper you linked to in your first post.

Please also note that any remote administration command can only be
received through networking, so proper firewalling (ipv6 may complicate
things - prepare your studies in advance) and monitoring may help great
lengths. Also, do avoid using x86-based firewalls/routers... ;)

-- 
Alex

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"qubes-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/c3bcfc1a-15b9-54ab-69e3-4dd98d3d4de7%40gmx.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to