Slashdot Mirror


Google Working To Remove MINIX-Based ME From Intel Platforms (tomshardware.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Tom's Hardware: Intel's Management Engine (ME) technology is built into almost all modern Intel CPUs. At the Embedded Linux Conference, a Google engineer named Ronald Minnich revealed that the ME is actually running its own entire MINIX OS and that Google is working on removing it. Due to MINIX's presence on every Intel system, the barebones Unix-like OS is the most widely deployed operating system in the world. Intel's ME technology is a hardware-level system within Intel CPUs that consists of closed-source firmware running on a dedicated microprocessor. There isn't much public knowledge of the workings of the ME, especially in its current state. It's not even clear where the hardware is physically located anymore.

What's concerning Google is the complexity of the ME. Public interest in the subject piqued earlier this year when a vulnerability was discovered in Intel's Active Management Technology (AMT), but that's just a software that runs on ME--ME is actually an entire OS. Minnich's presentation touched on his team's discovery that the OS in question is a closed version of the open-source MINIX OS. The real focus, though, is what's in it and the consequences. According the Minnich, that list includes web server capabilities, a file system, drivers for disk and USB access, and, possibly, some hardware DRM-related capabilities. It's not known if all this code is explicitly included for current or future ME capabilities, or if it's because Intel simply saw more potential value in keeping rather than removing it.

6 of 181 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Obvious question by complete+loony · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What about JTAG?

    --
    09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
  2. Re:Twisted facts... by G00F · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If ever notice that when thigns are powered off they are still using 1-10wats? Or that LED's are still lit or blinking?

    This is the case with PC's, Microwaves, Dumb TV, VCR's, your name it.

    PC's no longer have an on/off button. It's now a button that asks the CPU to shutdown. Power is not cut removed, and some parts stay powered on. Can't ask the CPU to power on, if there's no power for it to reconize the input.

    --
    The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
  3. In the meantime, this stalls AMT/ME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    See subject: Stop it's ability to send info. outward via router port filtering ala ports 16992-16995 that Intel AMT/ME uses so filter those ports in a modem/router external to OS/PC. Intel ME/AMT operates from your mobo but has NO CONTROL OF YOUR MODEM/ROUTER!

    (This stops it cold talking in/out permanently OR being able to remotely 'patch' it to use other ports by Intel OR malicious actors/malware makers etc.!)

    Additionally, once you disable the AMT engine's software interface (ez via software these articles note)? A malware to 'repatch' this = impossible (bios updaters require it in usermode ware, e.g. ASUS).

    (I only allow 80, 8080 & 443 in/out here on a SINGLE stand-alone system (no home LAN but TCP/IP connected online in BOTH my modem or router port filters or software firewalls))

    HOWEVER - Be CERTAIN your modem/router's internal ware is "solid" as well (turn off things like UPnP etc. & CHECK router/modem HAS NO KNOWN BACKDOOR EXPLOITS (tons do unfortunately)) - get it patched ASAP if it's KNOWN exploited & TONS of routers, ARE https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9995967&cid=53488785/

    * GOOD ROUTERS/MODEMS HAVE PORT FILTERING OPTIONS (crappy ones do not)!

    APK

    P.S.=> Good luck - it's the BEST EASIEST & CHEAPEST DEFENSE using what you already have (hopefully, again as not ALL modems have port filtering but most do & certainly GOOD ONES DO) vs. this threat by stopping it being able to communicate in/out period, from OUTSIDE of the INTEL chipset external to it via a router/firewall hardware... apk

  4. Re:My thoughts by arth1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This may be worth 0.02 or less but I believe the vulnerabilities can be mitigated somewhat by using disk encryption.

    And what do you use to encrypt and decrypt that data, so it never passes through the CPU or south bridge?

  5. Re:Lots of Problems With That Statement by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If the OS were GPL'ed, then the source code would have to be made available upon request. Making the source code available would mitigate much of the concern that the OS is not trustworthy, as in principle third parties could look for flaws and undocumented features.

    Sure, the GPL would be better than what there is now. But I think even that would not be good enough. GPL source code would be the start of making a system that users could trust. Besides that, there would have to be an explicit way to turn it off that could be confirmed to work reliably, and I would prefer a way to permanently remove it from the system with confirmation that worked too.

    There would be a lot of concern related to the overall security of that system (researchers tell us there are Minix bugs they will be reporting) and what that system is capable of doing for anyone but its owner.

    I am not sure I would want anything other than a very minimal system written in some sort of functional language that could be proven correct (and we know how expensive that is to write).

    Overall, I think I'd rather just have it out of my system.

  6. Re:It's in the SouthBridge not CPU dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    why would you trust Google?

    I don't trust Google. But it certainly is interesting news that Google doesn't trust Intel, either.