Slashdot Mirror
Is the 'Secret' Chip In Intel CPUs Really That Dangerous? (networkworld.com)
New submitter Miche67 writes: A recent Boing Boing blog post by Damien Zammit is stirring up fears, claiming Intel's x86 processors have a secret control mechanism that no one can audit or examine. And because of that, he says it could expose systems to undetectable rootkit attacks that cannot be killed.
Blogger Andy Patrizio, after talking with an Intel spokesperson, says the developer's argument has holes and he doesn't think Zammit will persuade Intel to replace the system with a free, open source option.
Blogger Andy Patrizio, after talking with an Intel spokesperson, says the developer's argument has holes and he doesn't think Zammit will persuade Intel to replace the system with a free, open source option.
So, what we have is an open source crusader scaring the daylights out of people on a giant what-if scenario that even he admits couldn't happen in our lifetimes.
An Intel spokesperson told the publication: While the Intel Management Engine is proprietary and Intel does not share the source code, it is very secure. Intel has a defined set of policies and procedures, managed by a dedicated team, to actively monitor and respond to vulnerabilities identified in released products. In the case of the Intel Management Engine, there are mechanisms in place to address vulnerabilities should the need arise.
How nice ... Is there any history about how that has worked before?
So from what I can tell, this entire fiasco is basically some blogger who was clearly ignorant of how enterprise management features that have been present in hardware for *years* having an "OMG YOU TRANSMIT YOUR IP ADDRESS TO THE WORLD EVERY TIME YOU GO TO A WEBSITE!!" moment.
And it wasn't even that original since the same damn hissy fit gets thrown every year or so as memory serves, since this is by no means the first time I've heard the conspiracy theory.
So, either this guy is an idiot (not discounting that at all) or he managed to troll people into generating clicky clicky ad revenue by recycling conspiracy theories. Some of the people being trolled might be willing participants to boot.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
The chip has the "power" to do many things including take secret control of a system, transfer files, read RAM, anything. No debate on that.
The "debate" is whether security through Intel obscurity (un-auditable unless you work for them) can be trusted FROM NOW ON, without checkups.
If history is any measure...
In the case of the Intel Management Engine, there are mechanisms in place to address vulnerabilities should the need arise.
Umm, if Intel is the only holder of the keys to the kingdom, then they get to decide when the need arises. In fact, how much do you want to bet that if someone is nice enough to bring an issue to Intel's attention and Intel decides to take no action that there's a "by the way, if you so much as make a peep about this we'll bury you in an avalanche of DMCA litigation for the rest of your natural life"?
Forgive me if I'm skeptical about this. I think I'd rather have an agreement with Darth Vader. At least he doesn't pretend to be a nice guy.
"While the Intel Management Engine is proprietary and Intel does not share the source code, it is very secure."
Well alrighty then, I feel so much better now. Because when a technology company says something is "very secure", you can take that to the bank!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
This capability has existed in certain CPU/chipsets since the Intel Core processors were released yet to date no one has successfully 'hacked' into this well-advertised feature...
Did this boing-boing blogger check with anyone that, you know, is fairly current on the Intel platform before exposing this 'incredible' security issue?
Ken
Anything I cannot audit, I have to trust. I have no reason to trust Intel. So yes, it is potentially dangerous because I can neither audit nor trust it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The term "security through obscurity" normally refers to the method being secret, not to secret information used to authenticate an actor within the system. More specifically, it normally refers to relying on the method being secret to make discovery of a vulnerability more difficult, rather than actually fixing the vulnerability. Clearly this is bad if an adversary becomes aware of that vulnerability anyway.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
yes, absolutely.
there is some empirical evidence - nothing concrete that can be shared publicly - which tends to suggest that the RSA private key that Intel uses is already known and in use. if nothing else, you should not be reassured that there have been no "gagging orders" that come out of the U.S. Government on a regular basis, preventing and prohibiting companies from telling anyone that "yes we have had the NSA knocking on our door and yes we were forced to give them the RSA private key because otherwise they threatened that whoops, it would be really hard to get export licenses for our processors".
this kind of threat by security services is not outside the realm of possibility: it already happens, and i have met someone who was present at a meeting (with GCHQ) in which this type of threat to destabilise their business model was actually made.
there is a really simple solution, here: don't buy systems with intel processors. that assumes of course that people are making systems for sale that don't have intel processors... and that's exactly what i'm doing. i'm not one for complaining *without* actually doing something about it, so if you'd like to sign up for the crowdfunding campaign which will launch very shortly, you can do so here - http://crowdsupply.com/eoma68
AMT allows anyone who can broadcast DHCP and legitimately purchase a certificate from a CA to own your system while if it isn't even turned on.
If there is a defect (as if the above isn't bad enough) they won't bother to fix their bugs once they have decided your hardware is no longer worth their time to support... same as IPMI vendors and all the rest.
Even when you turn off "AMT" in bios if you are lucky enough to even have that option which I do not... it is STILL there listening. The only way I've found to limit this unnecessary and unwanted system within a system madness is to disable the hardware virtualization feature which prevents sharing of hardware with IME and operating system.
While the Intel Management Engine is proprietary and Intel does not share the source code, it is very secure.
I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I saw this.
No. Obviously not and the guy stirring up trouble is either underinformed or irresponsible.
Most of the hardware in your computer isn't something you get (or could get) a gate diagram from. You'd never know if something is in there that theoretically could be triggered to do something. That's the way hardware is. This guy is fussing over a publicly known feature that people are using in the enterprise to manage systems en masse. It doesn't open some magic wormhole to the control system - it requires a clear path of access and a setup and all that fun stuff. Meaning if you want to use IME, you need to set it up on all the systems for your network environment and debug it and build tooling around it. It's not fun to get that stuff right, and often not that easy.
It's not impossible that there's a backdoor in IME, but it's just as easy to imagine a backdoor anywhere else in your system. It's hard to imagine how one could ever be confident that that's not the case. So the focus and the anger is misaimed.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
No, the term security by obscurity means that the method MUST be a secret, because that secret is the only thing providing security. It is entirely possible, and quite normal, to have a security system which does not REQUIRE the method to remain secret, yet still not disclose what that method is. That is NOT security by obscurity, it is additional security by obscurity, and is in no way a bad thing.
Not disclosing the method sucks from an auditability standpoint, but in no way means that the actual security is provided by obscurity.
'Intel Management Engine (ME) .. described as "an extra general purpose computer running a firmware blob .. a chip protected by RSA 2048 security on a chip'
Can I replace this firmware blob with one of my own?
Can I replace the RSA key with one of my own?
Can I audit this firmware blob to see what it does?
Can I disable this ME subsystem?
Who else can access this ME subsystem?
"there are mechanisms in place to address vulnerabilities should the need arise."
So basically Intel and any designated third party can access your computer regardless of in place security mechanisms.
"Security through obscurity" is a term of art, a quick way of referring to a useful concept that anyone who works in the field understands. That meaning is surely also what the OP was referring in their post. Perhaps you weren't familiar with it, but every professional or academic working on IT security will be.
Security through obscurity is not a particularly successful technique and never has been, as you can tell from the vast number of published exploits against systems that were not actually secure based on vulnerabilities that were discovered despite their obscurity.
By the way, the point of private keys isn't (just) that they are longer than passwords, though that is a significant practical benefit. Authentication using public-private key pairs is also asymmetric: someone possessing the public key can verify that someone they are talking to, for example someone requesting SSH access to a server, is in possession of the corresponding private key without the private key ever being disclosed. This is qualitatively different to typical password-based authentication, where someone logging in to the server does actually send their full password to the server's SSH daemon (encrypted, obviously), even if further processing is then based on some derived hash value.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
And when the FBI orders them to provide secret access to this chip running in all devices using it worldwide, they'll obviously break national security laws to inform the public, right? Oh, but of course, since it's the FBI, it'll still be secure from all (other) bad actors!
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
> namely, if it can be compromised by a rootkit
It fucking IS a rootkit.
Christ.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.