Slashdot Mirror
Dell Begins Offering Laptops With Intel's 'Management Engine' Disabled (liliputing.com)
An anonymous reader quotes Liliputing.com
Linux computer vendor System76 announced this week that it will roll out a firmware update to disable Intel Management Engine on laptops sold in the past few years. Purism will also disable Intel Management Engine on computers it sells moving forward. Those two computer companies are pretty small players in the multi-billion dollar PC industry. But it turns out one of the world's largest PC companies is also offering customers the option of buying a computer with Intel Management Engine disabled.
At least three Dell computers can be configured with an "Intel vPro -- ME Inoperable, Custom Order" option, although you'll have to pay a little extra for those configurations... While Intel doesn't officially provide an option to disable its Management Engine, independent security researchers have discovered methods for doing that and we're starting to see PC makers make use of those methods.
The option appears to be available on most of Dell's Latitude laptops (from the 12- to 15-inch screens), including the 7480, 5480, and 5580 and the Latitude 14 5000 Series (as well as several "Rugged" and "Rugged Extreme" models).
Dell is charging anywhere from $20.92 to $40 to disable Intel's Management Engine.
At least three Dell computers can be configured with an "Intel vPro -- ME Inoperable, Custom Order" option, although you'll have to pay a little extra for those configurations... While Intel doesn't officially provide an option to disable its Management Engine, independent security researchers have discovered methods for doing that and we're starting to see PC makers make use of those methods.
The option appears to be available on most of Dell's Latitude laptops (from the 12- to 15-inch screens), including the 7480, 5480, and 5580 and the Latitude 14 5000 Series (as well as several "Rugged" and "Rugged Extreme" models).
Dell is charging anywhere from $20.92 to $40 to disable Intel's Management Engine.
Intel created it's own operating system on a chip that is almost completely outside of user control. It has full functionality to read and take control of any part of your PC, even when it is powered off. All the code is black boxed and unreadable to the user so there is no auditing it to see if it is secure. If a hacker or virus was able to re-write the OS on the chip (something that has confirmed to be possible), they would have complete control of your system with virtually no way to remove it. For people in the tinfoil hat club (a club I visit from time to time), this means that Intel, and anyone that they choose to grant access to, such as FBI, NSA, etc., can clandestinely monitor all activity that you do on your PC without any indication that they are doing so and no security software that you run, commercial or home-brew, will alert you to the monitoring.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
It's not Dell's fault and it did genuinely take some effort on their part to figure out a way to do this without bricking machines in a fairly reliable manner. They also tend to have the best support in the industry, meaning if Intel figures out a way to reactivate it Dell will be on the hook for disabling it again, $20-$40 is nothing for that kind of long term support on a system they have no actual control over.
Well, that's fucking scary. What is the alleged upside to Intel ME? Asking for a friend...
Mass configuration, deployment, and recovery for a large fleet of desktop computers you are tasks with managing.
You enable ME to remotely control the hardware and provision its boot drive, and manage the initial setup of the OS down for untrained staff for repair purposes.
You can enable it by hitting Control-P at boot, turn ME on, setup an IP/vlan, and upload a public key into it to authenticate.
Alternately you can load some config files on a USB stick to do that, and hitting Control-P will see this and use those configs for you.
Alternately again, if you buy a hundred or more PCs a year, you can provide a special public key and ME-Manager IP address to your OEM, and they put it into a special provisioning mode with that info.
On first boot it will contact your provisioning server and accept configurations sighed with that special keypairs private key, and the provisioning server then uploads the real public key and other settings.
Once provisioned, you can instruct the system to mount an ISO image over the network to be in the optical drives place, and send power on/off events.
Generally you'll do this to load your initial OS base image and let it image the HD for your company.
Once that part completes, the base image OS does its own initial setup depending on OS (Active directory for windows; ldap with puppet for unix or RedHats launchpad as just two examples)
When a desktop has a boot drive failure, you can order a new HD and have it shipped to the branch office, and have nearly anyone swap the HD out.
In the mean time you've reset the system to be in provisioning mode, so you instruct your "remote hands" to change out the HD for the new one and hit the power button.
The system comes up and has the HD imaged again, either with a previous backup, or your base image, and go from there.
The concept is a great one.
However the GP is telling the truth when they say the ME code can't be audited.
That's a pretty big problem as you have to trust Intel that it does what they say it does.
Of course to even get to ME, you need either layer-3 network access or physical access.
If one has physical access they already "own" the system, and already falls under physical security instead.
It's the local LAN access that can be a problem.
The concern in the real world isn't so much about Intel or the government, as those bodies already don't have access into our firewalls nor do we provide them VPN access in. It's about other employees which need to be in the building to do their work and thus have access to the LAN.
GP also intentionally confused the separate issues with taking over the ME code.
Researchers have found code exploits and used those to perform the hijacking of the ME.
There is zero evidence Intel has any additional access than is claimed.
This is like saying a one-off typo in some code that results in a remote exploit in your webserver is the exact same thing as the makers of that webserver intentionally granting someone else access to your system. And that is rarely the case.
As the ME code isn't able to be audited the possibility is not zero percent.
But even if it could be shown Intels code has no backdoors and everything is written to work exactly like the ME documentation says it does, that only means Intel is trustworthy in their intentions. Bugs in code that result in an exploit are still very possible and still a real threat.
I just don't see the usefulness of saying "Looks like a bug in OpenSSH has an exploit, and Linus allowed it to be put on Linux, thusly I will never trust another thing Linus says or writes including any patches to fix the problem" purely due to not being smart enough to understand the math and code doing encryption.