Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Researchers Discover and Abuse New Undocumented Feature in Intel Chipsets (zdnet.com)

Posted by msmash on from the security-woes dept.

At the Black Hat Asia 2019 security conference, security researchers from Positive Technologies disclosed the existence of a previously unknown and undocumented feature in Intel chipsets. From a report: Called Intel Visualization of Internal Signals Architecture (Intel VISA), Positive Technologies researchers Maxim Goryachy and Mark Ermolov said this is a new utility included in modern Intel chipsets to help with testing and debugging on manufacturing lines. VISA is included with Platform Controller Hub (PCH) chipsets part of modern Intel CPUs and works like a full-fledged logic signal analyzer. According to the two researchers, VISA intercepts electronic signals sent from internal buses and peripherals (display, keyboard, and webcam) to the PCH -- and later the main CPU. Unauthorized access to the VISA feature would allow a threat actor to intercept data from the computer memory and create spyware that works at the lowest possible level. But despite its extremely intrusive nature, very little is known about this new technology.

102 comments

  1. Overheard in the Intel marketing department by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I'm just spitballing here, but I've read that a lot of computers have rootkits on them. What if we baked a root kit right into the hardware so everyone could have one without having to go through the trouble of installing one?"

    1. Re: Overheard in the Intel marketing department by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't UEFI going to save the world from rootkits?

    2. Re: Overheard in the Intel marketing department by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      UEFI is a rootkit.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  2. Requires physical access by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

    This exploit requires physical access.

    If black-hats have physical access to your computer, you are already in deep doo-doo.

    1. Re:Requires physical access by SurenEnfiajyan · · Score: 1
      From the article:

      However, the two researchers said they found several methods of enabling VISA and abusing it to sniff data that passes through the CPU, and even through the secretive Intel Management Engine (ME), which has been housed in the PCH since the release of the Nehalem processors and 5-Series chipsets.

      I think not only with physical access.

    2. Re:Requires physical access by dfghjk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Says an Intel spokesman. That is, however, not true.

      Physical access is required of systems that have taken actions to require it, namely physical access required to update certain flash data. For systems that haven't done this, physical access isn't required.

    3. Re:Requires physical access by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This exploit requires physical access.

      No, it doesn't. You took the word of an Intel spokesperson over a hackers, seriously?

      You should have kept reading:

      "Customers who have applied those mitigations are protected from known vectors," the company said.

      However, in an online discussion after his Black Hat talk, Ermolov said the Intel-SA-00086 fixes are not enough, as Intel firmware can be downgraded to vulnerable versions where the attackers can take over Intel ME and later enable VISA.

      Furthermore, Ermolov said that there are three other ways to enable Intel VISA, methods that will become public when Black Hat organizers will publish the duo's presentation slides in the coming days.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    4. Re:Requires physical access by sjames · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry, no. As long as the ME continues to exist and is not exclusively under the control of the machine's owner, the risk of remote exploit exists.

    5. Re:Requires physical access by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ..no, you're mistaken. I've personally worked with Intel silicon and you have to physically connect to debug ports (that are marked on Production silicon datasheets as 'N/C' or similar) to utilize these debug features. At worst for 'closed box' debugging you need to plug Intel-specific, proprietary debug hardware into on-board USB ports. There is another requirement to enable it that I won't discuss here. You can't access this over the internet.

    6. Re: Requires physical access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because security researchers aren't known for talking up the impact at all.

    7. Re: Requires physical access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about over the world wide web?

    8. Re: Requires physical access by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      "Trolling is a art"

      Back in the day, trolling required some artistry, some intelligence, some understanding of the subject at hand, in order to craft a troll-comment that would actually get in someone's head. These days? Any two-bit script-kiddie or room-temperature-IQ ne'er-do-well with a smartphone and too much time on their hands posts nonsensical garbage, then when they get a confused reply to the effect of 'lolwut?', they reflexively post 'ha ha u mad!' as if they accomplished something.
      Sad, sad, sad.

    9. Re:Requires physical access by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      It requires physical access to the pin that you are now shoving a 4 GHz signal out of, assuming you could figure how to set the muxes to get the signal there in the first place.

    10. Re: Requires physical access by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      I assume it would be illegal to sell a CPU in Soviet America that isn't factory p0wned.

  3. Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is fantastic for DIY and debugging.

  4. Overheard later in the Intel development departmen by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Funny

    "No, one rootkit is no good. Make sure we bake in a few of different types in case something goes wrong with one. Redundancy is the key to reliability."

  5. I'm shocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No really, I am. Who woulda thunk it.

    It's getting to the point where Intel CPUs having another vulnerability is about as newsworthy as Trump tweeting something stupid: it happens far too often and no one wants to think about it.

    1. Re:I'm shocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Intel Inside" has been a mandatory warning label for many years already.

  6. Someone forgot to blow the fuse by davidwr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since these features are meant for use on the assembly line you can't just remove them.

    But you can design them to be permanently disabled as one of the last steps before the chip leaves the manufacturing plant.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Someone forgot to blow the fuse by DickBreath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would the NSA want a feature like this to be disabled when the chip leaves the manufacturing line?

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:Someone forgot to blow the fuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would the NSA want a feature like this to be disabled when the chip leaves the manufacturing line?

      Because they don't want it to be leaked by Russia?

    3. Re:Someone forgot to blow the fuse by aliquis · · Score: 2

      It's almost like there's a bunch of those features built in to make sure someone can get access ...

    4. Re:Someone forgot to blow the fuse by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Would be fascinating to know if the NSA did actually tell them not to disable it, when Intel wanted to. My money is on simple incompetence though.

      Intel doesn't understand security and doesn't even really think about it. They just assume that because they didn't publish the docs it's a secret and no-one will be able to abuse it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Someone forgot to blow the fuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since these features are meant for use on the assembly line you can't just remove them.

      But you can design them to be permanently disabled as one of the last steps before the chip leaves the manufacturing plant.

      I checked whether I have access to these documents and I do not. Therefore, I cannot speculate as to what VISA is, but I have some theories. However, I am under the impression from some documentation that I do have access to that there are features that silicon vendor in question is still able to enable even if it has been fused out before the end of manufacturing. The exact details on how that is done is a secret that I am not privy to. And there is also the possibility that I am mistaken.

    6. Re:Someone forgot to blow the fuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would be fascinating to know if the NSA did actually tell them not to disable it, when Intel wanted to. My money is on simple incompetence though.

      Intel doesn't understand security and doesn't even really think about it. They just assume that because they didn't publish the docs it's a secret and no-one will be able to abuse it.

      There are tradeoffs with all silicon vendors though ARM has a distinct advantage of being able to learn from the mistakes of Intel and AMD. However, they are beginning to find the need to enable some of the capabilities that x86 platforms have had for ages that increase the complexity of platform security.

    7. Re:Someone forgot to blow the fuse by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What they forgot is who owns the damned computer. Many devices have all of the same capabilities, usable for testing, diagnostics, and debugging new firmware, but most of them aren't as stupid as Intel about it. They require you to physically plug in to a JTAG interface.

      Back in "the old days", you could "de-brick" a WRT54 using a simple hand made adapter to connect a PCs parallel port to the JTAG connection on the board and running a simple utility that would re-flash the WRT through JTAG.

      In a world where the consumer that forks over the cash actually owns the device, all devices should expose a JTAG port, and none should be so stupid as to connect it to a Management Engine running secret signed and encrypted firmware that the rightful owner can't change.

    8. Re:Someone forgot to blow the fuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could be intentional "incompetence". IIRC during the Snowden leaks it came out that the NSA had plants in various companies who weakened security from the inside.

    9. Re:Someone forgot to blow the fuse by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Remember Scooby Doo? If it weren't for these pesky researchers, the NSA might have gotten away with it and the Russians would never have known.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    10. Re:Someone forgot to blow the fuse by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

      Correct. For Production silicon, certain one-time-programmable bits ('fuses') are supposed to be programmed, disabling the internal debug features.
      However there are ways to re-enable it on a per-boot-cycle basis; you just have to know how. This capability is included and allowed so that 'closed box' debugging can be done by Intel if there is a problem an OEM is having that requires Intel to assist with it. Think of it as a 'backdoor' into the debugging infrastructure of the silicon. The ways and means of temporarily re-enabling the debug features are supposed to be a top secret, because allowing them would make reverse engineering the silicon so much easier, but as with all 'backdoors' if someone has the skills and determination they just might be able to find it on their own.

    11. Re:Someone forgot to blow the fuse by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 0

      This has nothing to do with the NSA or any other government agency it has to do with post-silicon validation, debugging, and BIOS/firmware development. It just so happens that malicious types, if capable of accessing it, could also use it for nefarious purposes.

    12. Re:Someone forgot to blow the fuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a world where the consumer that forks over the cash actually owns the device, all devices should expose a JTAG port, and none should be so stupid as to connect it to a Management Engine running secret signed and encrypted firmware that the rightful owner can't change.

      Depends on your chip, bios, and motherboard chipsets, but it is possible to modify all of that.
      There is no real standard between board makers and BIOS and all the tools are far from user friendly, but if you have the desire, the know-how is out there.

      I've reflashed a core i7 to upgrade management engine, both ME in the PCH and MEBX in the EFI bios, and one was a v3 to v9 upgrade to gain features you normally buy like VNC access.
      I've patched in ATM to my bios from an OEM that normally charges for that and only for corporate customers.
      I've updated and replaced SLIC modules for completely bad reasons.
      I've decompiled, modified, recompiled and patched in memory bus and video PCI bootstrap code.
      I've even ripped the intel AMT code for LMS-SOL out of one HP Proliant server to patch into an HP compaq pro desktop.

      I've even added software to the Minix OS running on the PCH, what you seem to be calling "management engine"

      This can be done on award, phoenix, and intel efi bios. On asus, dell, hp, gigabyte, and via boards.

      None of this is encrypted and unchangeable. It is signed of course and verified by the previous step of the boot process, but everyone has access to that at the most root level, yes even you (hit control-p during your next boot up), and you can certainly replace all keys to verify against with your own, so long as you also sign with that keypair everything you reflash (modified or not)

      It's also not secret

    13. Re:Someone forgot to blow the fuse by davidwr · · Score: 1

      However there are ways to re-enable it on a per-boot-cycle basis; you just have to know how. This capability is included and allowed so that 'closed box' debugging can be done by Intel if there is a problem an OEM is having that requires Intel to assist with it.

      Okay, fine, but compromise a bit on the "closed box" and require that a pin on the CPU be jumpered to something during boot to enable this, so it cannot be enabled without physical access.

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    14. Re:Someone forgot to blow the fuse by sjames · · Score: 1

      You seem to be confused a bit. The Intel ME firmware is the locked down part. I was NOT talking about EFI, UEFI, BIOS, PCI boot ROMS, or even applying a vendor created and signed update.

    15. Re:Someone forgot to blow the fuse by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't matter. Even if you know how to get per-boot access to the debug features you still have to have physical access to use them anyway, so just jumpering a pin somewhere wouldn't matter at all. See this too: https://slashdot.org/comments....

    16. Re:Someone forgot to blow the fuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be confused a bit. The Intel ME firmware is the locked down part. I was NOT talking about EFI, UEFI, BIOS, PCI boot ROMS, or even applying a vendor created and signed update.

      I'm not confused one bit. The "ME" stands for Management Engine, and is in the PCH, platform controller hub, on the motherboard.

      You can run your own software on it. I've done that exact thing. If it was "locked down part" then that shouldn't be possible.

      It interfaces with everything you just said you aren't talking about right after you said you were talking about the ME that interfaces with those things...

      Are you sure you know what you mean?

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

    17. Re:Someone forgot to blow the fuse by sjames · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should read that link yourself.

      If you ran something on it, it was using a scripted exploit that Intel did not intend to work. So, what did you run and how did you get it on there?

    18. Re:Someone forgot to blow the fuse by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      Full debug access back as far as Broadwell has required a cryptographic key which is dowloaded every time you power up the device.

  7. So it has an official name by the_skywise · · Score: 3, Insightful
    and it has an official purpose (and they have a plan!)

    Called Intel Visualization of Internal Signals Architecture (Intel VISA), Positive Technologies researchers Maxim Goryachy and Mark Ermolov said this is a new utility included in modern Intel chipsets to help with testing and debugging on manufacturing lines.

    How is that "undocumented" other than Intel only provides the docs to paying developers?

    1. Re:So it has an official name by SurenEnfiajyan · · Score: 1

      I think Intel should switch its employees' PCs/laptops to AMD.

    2. Re:So it has an official name by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      How is that "undocumented" other than Intel only provides the docs to paying developers?

      Any documentation about it is only available to under NDA and only for motherboard manufacturers. As such, information about it is unable to enter the public sphere so much so that even OS developers are unaware of it's very existence. It seems to be tightly coiled with IME so the only thing more secret than Intel VISA (that we know of) is the CPU microcode.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    3. Re:So it has an official name by thereddaikon · · Score: 2

      Its undocumented to anyone who isn't an Intel partner clearly. The motherboard manufacturers obviously know about it because its made for them. But its existent was kept under NDA so anyone who did know about it wasn't talking. The reasoning there is kind of obvious, if it really is a full logic analyzer then you could learn a lot about Intel hardware with this thing. Would be very useful for competitors to reverse engineer Intel's products without much effort. What doesn't make sense is why it isn't permanently disabled before leaving the factory. Security through obscurity is not valid.

    4. Re:So it has an official name by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      The name for this policy is "security through obscurity".

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:So it has an official name by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Since it's not needed for the consumer, I wonder if it can be permanently disabled with some application; hopefully provided by Intel publicly. Bonus if rolled into a Microsoft KB patch on Update Tuesday.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    6. Re:So it has an official name by sjames · · Score: 1

      That doesn't make much sense either. Anyone big enough to go into the chip business for themselves can already reverse engineer Intel's products without much effort.

    7. Re:So it has an official name by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      It's very high on the list of 'important intellectual property' because being able to freely access it would be a great help in reverse-engineering the silicon for purposes of stealing the designs.

  8. done by jmccue · · Score: 3, Funny

    That is it, I am done. Now where is my 286 ?

    1. Re:done by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      Can a modern ARM chip give you as good performance or better than a 286?

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is it, I am done. Now where is my 286 ?

      Your solution to trouble with process isolation in modern hardware is to go back to a time when process isolation didn't even work?

    3. Re:done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      386 is the bare minimum. You're probably fine with Pentium (i586).

    4. Re:done by somenickname · · Score: 1

      Rather than try to coax a 286 to life, you should look into OpenPOWER based systems like Raptor Computing Systems POWER9 machines (https://www.raptorcs.com/). They are just about to release their microATX form factor boards that are still expensive but not too crazy. These are very open machines, performance competitive with Intel/AMD based systems and can run a number of popular Linux distros. I'm looking forward to ditching Intel once my Blackbird motherboard arrives.

    5. Re:done by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      The Arm chip has a much higher clock rate than the (old) Intel chip. The Intel chip requires fewer clock cycles per instruction, but not enough to make up the difference. The Arm chip can probably emulate the Intel chip at full speed.

    6. Re:done by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Na. Very much na.
      The last time I used qemu-i386 on an ARM, it took just over 10 minutes to boot a kernel.

    7. Re:done by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

      You can get a Hex Driver for the POWER9 HSF for only $12.50 plus S&H!

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    8. Re:done by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a reasonable time for an i386 to boot a kernel, why are you complaining?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:done by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Can't tell if kidding. If not... No, no it is not.

  9. NSA sooooo deep in your Shit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not even Intel knows all the backdoors in their shitty chips. SAD.

  10. Re:Yet Rachel Maddow the freak lost viewers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, did you forget to take your meds today? Blink if you need help, okay?

    Really.

  11. Good luck in prison, Trump traitors! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/mueller-sentencing-memos-michael-cohen-trump-2020-prison.html

  12. Someone forgot to blow the motherboard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Close, but not quite. This is a feature someone designing and manufacturing a motherboard would use. Once that's done THEN one would disable it, much like test points and other debug features are disabled.

  13. So it has an official pinout. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only if this feature brought out signals otherwise hidden. Otherwise competitors already have logic analyzers and more importantly other equipment that can look deeper.

  14. Modern ARM chip has ARM TrustZone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so, 286 is still better

  15. Running qemu-system, maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Running qemu-arch, definitely. However I am not sure if qemu properly emulates all features of processors earlier than the 486. I don't think it even includes 386 compatibility anymore (if it ever really had it.)

    Having said that, a lot of systems can be emulated on arm processors. The ones that run with reduced performance are mostly arches with larger register files than ARM, which is mostly legacy processor architectures at this point.

    1. Re:Running qemu-system, maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      qemu can do 386 just fine except for faulting on something the 486 has and the 386 doesn't. It's the 286 that's hard and that really only shows up trying to run OS/2.

  16. Actually VISA is an industry standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Very little is known about this new technology."

    Actually, this is not new technology, and absolutely everything is known about it, and it is very well-documented.

  17. Let's talk... by higuita · · Score: 1

    ...NSA here, please ignore that little feature, nothing to see here!

    https://media.giphy.com/media/...
    https://tenor.com/view/fizzer1...

    --
    Higuita
  18. These are not new features, they've been there by GregMmm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe Intel VISA is a newly coined phrase, but there have been access to the PCH has been around for along time. In my experience (at Intel, on dev teams) This is used firstly for debug at development time and then at manufacturing time for passing certain test. Both used to have a physical device to do this, so just doing it remotely wouldn't work. Also, all features were available at dev time for obvious reasons. By manufacturing time, it should be mostly locked down and before it goes out the door, totally locked.

    What I'm afraid of is security has become lax enough to allow remote access to this. Like a lazy engineer/architect (ever had one of those?) didn't want to walk his butt into the secure lab so they just put some back door in with telling anyone. Or worse after by off from the development team.

    Also, yes these are undocumented because they are never meant for outside use (Intel, OEMs, etc) Just debug and optimization. No one else would really want access, but nefarious peeps would.

    This could be a big issue if there really is something here. I'm hoping Intel didn't get lazy, but who knows.

    1. Re:These are not new features, they've been there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, yes these are undocumented because they are never meant for outside use (Intel, OEMs, etc) Just debug and optimization. No one else would really want access, but nefarious peeps would.

      Sure, and I can't be the victim of racism because I'm a white man. You can try to redefine words all you want, but you can't make me care. This is documented. Full stop. Because, you know, that's what the word means.

    2. Re:These are not new features, they've been there by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      There are certain levels of debug access that are left open for the system integrators (e.g. Dell) to do debug on their own systems. It is then their responsibility to disable this on production systems.

  19. Okay, that's it by Red_Forman · · Score: 1

    Enough with all the dumbass stuff from Intel, Microsoft and Apple.

    My next laptop will be a freakin' Raspberry Pi 3 running a non-systemD Linux distro of some sort.

    1. Re:Okay, that's it by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Christ, I can't wait to go back to the awesome experience of running slackware on a Pentium 2.

    2. Re:Okay, that's it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Pentium 2 didn't have built-in NSA spyware.

    3. Re:Okay, that's it by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You could try ODROID instead.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re: Okay, that's it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incel male feminist nazis sure do love the police state.

  20. Older processors were microcoded too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Pentium Pro was just the first processor with a microcode update facility that could be updated dynamically outside of a factory setting. I've heard that either some or all of the original Pentiums may have been capable of this as well, but it was either undocumented for security reasons or required access to CPU facilities that motherboard hardware of the era didn't support outside of development systems.

    The CPU microcode has been very concerning for me, since a large portion of it since the 1990s has been developed in Israel. Given the Israeli intelligence apparatus is both more intelligent and more ruthless than its American counterpart, I assume they have full access to the signing keys and microcode documentation, even if no one else does. During the Pentium Pro era there were only 4 guys within the state of California with access to the microcode documentation and signing facilities and the documentation folders for that hardware was an instant fire offense if it left the designated development area, even just one room over. So Intel, at least in the past, took the security of the Microcode VERY seriously, but at the same time has had almost 28 years for key developer assets to be compromised, bribed, or voluntarily leak documentation on the microcode architecture and firmware to interested parties. Since it is signed it gives hostile 3rd parties quite an advantage, since malware combined with the correct microcode updates can do things that would be impossible to reproduce on an uncompromised platform without a copy of the microcode update used.

    Intel ME on the other hand looks more and more like Clipper 2.0/Palladium rather than a real remote management/user benefit security platform. In addition, since Skylake the entire platform is developed in Israel which should concern you just from the lack of scrutiny on the blackbox firmware it uses and who may have access to the both the signing key and source code for developing their own modules for infiltration and exfiltration from believed secure systems. The best and only defense you can have is an IDS mirroring all traffic to and from Intel hardware watching for that unusual traffic pattern that is a 1 in a billion chance of discovering the attack. In reality, with amazon s3, microsoft azure, etc the exfiltration of data without discovery would be almost impossible to discover without a very narrow whitelist of outgoing connections for the systems in question. If anyone has gone to this level of investigation and had a reason for those systems to be targetted and compromised, they have kept quiet about the attack and their ability and knowledge to discover it. We as consumers or businesses without a dedicated intrusion prevention/forensics team have no chance at all of catching such an attack.

    1. Re:Older processors were microcoded too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      protip: the chip says INTEL on it. If you don't realize that "Signal Visualization" is code for SIGINT visualising, then you're daft. INTEL has never taken security seriously, it's right in the fucking corps name.

  21. Only 'abuse' is by Intel by schwit1 · · Score: 2

    Intel put the features in, failed to document them, failed to disable them and KNOWS researchers will be looking for them.

    The only abuse is Intel not taking responsibility for its incompetence.

  22. Build a wall! by Toxiz · · Score: 0

    "We should build a wall around these processors to keep the undocumented features from accessing the rest of the system" -POTUS

    1. Re:Build a wall! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Make AMD pay for it!

  23. Re:Keep projecting, lol (& losing vs. me)... a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd say THAT counts as a blink

    Seriously and no joke at all, please please please seek some professional help.

  24. Yet Rachel Maddow the freak lost viewers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet Rachel Maddow the freak lost viewers: ~20% & climbing. So much for "Russian Collusion" bullshit the TWISTO cannonfodder "SA/Brownshirt" EXPENDABLES spewed, lol!

    * "DOWN, scumbag - DOWN!" because you do ALL you've ever KNOWN how to do - LOSE, loser!

    YOU LOST HERE TOO & so BADLY vs. FACT I noted that YOU HAD TO TRY "downmod hide" this very same post last 3x TIMES I posted it, lol https://it.slashdot.org/commen... & https://it.slashdot.org/commen... & https://it.slashdot.org/commen...

    KEEP IT UP - please: I'll just RUN YOU DRY of your LIMITED (like you) 'downmodpoints', inevitably - lol!

    APK

    P.S.=> You TRAITOR fucks are going to get what you dished out in return VERY SOON (mark my words) - retaliation of a likes you have NO CLUE albeit w/ one LARGE difference - it will be FACTUAL real information (Hillary Uranium One w/ Mueller for example, lol) - you're REALLY "going down", soon (& the entire PLANET's already LAUGHING @ "your kind" w/ your JEW Media masters too)... apk

  25. Typical JEW = COHEN... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another JEW down? To be expected. Our president however?? Different story https://www.washingtonpost.com...

    * On COHEN? His kind is TAUGHT to LIE from their own "talmud":

    Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."

    &

      Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

    APK

    P.S.=> It's what they do & WHAT GOT THEM TOSSED INTO FURNACES &/or Zyklon B showers + BANNED nation to nation thru time:

    Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations!

    FACT - I welcome ANYONE to validly disprove it (from NON-JEW sources because all they DO is lie): UPDATE & FACT YOU COULDN'T & TRIED "downmod hiding" a FAIR CHALLENGE put to you lol https://it.slashdot.org/commen... ... apk

  26. Keep projecting, lol (& losing vs. me)... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You project your meds addictions addict & as usual trying to stop ME w/ your abused downmods FAILS https://it.slashdot.org/commen...
    * ACCEPT IT - it truly IS all "your kind" has ever done &/or knows how to do - lose.

    APK

    P.S.=> https://www.infowars.com/rache... lol - you're LOSING (even losing those you DUPED which is such GOOD news)... apk

  27. Prove you have a home/job etc. ok? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & PROVE it: I work for myself for 12 yrs. now in a successful business of my own.I don't have to be a "wageslave" anymore (spent from 16-46 escaping it - you obviously haven't & NEVER WILL in your BURGERKING job, lol).

    Yes - It'll be funnier than hell seeing you "flail" since trolls like you live under bridges w/ junkies, no home of your own (since you SHOT IT UP YOUR ARM, lol) let alone FULLY PAID OFF as I do!

    I tossed another roughly 35k into my home since 2010 to IMPROVE it!

    DO YOU EVEN HAVE A HOME OF YOUR OWN LOSER? Prove it - prove me wrong (that it's also fully paid off too).

    My Car's in those GTA type games so it must be a NICE SPORTSCAR & soon to be CLASSIC in PERFECT CONDITION only 37k miles in 13++ yrs. I've owned it, Mobil 1 15k mile synthetic the WHOLE way (changed every 5k miles or so)!

    Perfect motor/body/tranny - you name it). As to its brakes? That's about right & I do the work, MYSELF (I'm not "helpless henry" STUPID paying shops to do an EASY brakejob like you either).

    APK

    P.S.=> Additionally - PROVE you've done BETTER work than I have which DOZENS of REGISTERED /.ers like/use'/praise as I have that keeps folks safer/faster online (along w/ 200++k users worldwide) - prove it (lol - I KNOW you'll "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & WHY? Hell - you're JEALOUS "Lil' Jowie" the DO-NOTHING "ne'er-do-well" PSYCHO that STALKS me ALL DAY LONG on /. like the LOON LOSER you are proving yourself to be constantly)... apk

    1. Re:Prove you have a home/job etc. ok? by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

      Jesus, Seek Professional Help.
      Seriously, before you hurt yourself with a butter knife.
      No one stalks you, you are the stalker.
      You reply to yourself, make irrational statements continuously and are a boor and intensely spinning out of control.
      Fuck it, you're a lost cause, here's a butter knife.....

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
  28. remember the Clipper chip? by epine · · Score: 2

    Who else remembers the Clipper chip saga from the first light of eternal September?

    The Clipper chip was a chipset that was developed and promoted by the NSA as an encryption device that secured "voice and data messages" with a built-in backdoor. Each clipper chip had a unique serial number and a secret unit key programmed into the chip when manufactured.

    It was part of a Clinton Administration program to "allow Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials the ability to decode intercepted voice and data transmissions."

    It was announced in 1993 and by 1996 was entirely defunct.

    Bruce Schneier's Applied Cryptography (1994) had just come out, and it was a glorious rip in the kimono of the grotesquely secretive surveillance state. (At one point, in the institution's formative adolescence, even the NSA's name was hard to find out.)

    In those glorious, turbulent years of eternal onset we—the open source greybeards of minimal middle—managed to score some surprising victories over the rather clumsy NSA, clearly dazed by those first insistent rays of sunshine, now stumbling around in the public sphere like John Oliver fresh out of bed, blinded by paparazzi flashbulbs en route to his underwear drawer.

    I enjoyed this comedic spectacle while it was happening to the power of ten.

    Meanwhile, another part of my brain was going "they'll be baaack". If you catch Rommel with his pants down at 06:00, enjoy it while you can; by 0:900 you'll wish you hadn't. Clearly the hard-boiled eggheads of this imperious and paranoid institution weren't going to consume their crumpets of crow quavering cadaverously. Now there's so much crepuscular silicon—how shall we best phrase this?—of mixed utility that you need avail yourself of the extended edition of Hogwart's Almanac merely to decode the confounding acronyms.

    Clinton's Clipper comeuppance was the most glorious greybeard insurgency I've ever witnessed, but with a teeny, tiny fly embedded in the silver lining: we basically started a land war in Asia we could not ultimately win. Not even a historic Snowden dump changed matters much at the end of the day. With the persistence of the North Vietnamese (augmented by Mexican mechanization) minions of the NSA have cunningly scrabbled subsoil, stealth supply lines all the way to Moscow's front door.

    This story is a somewhat different offensive than Operation Typhoon. They don't want to conquer Moscow, they want to become Moscow, under cover of ubiquitous onion domes, now tinier than anyone had once imagined, shrouded in RF-transparent Mandelbrot onion skin: you are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.

    All said and done—and duly intercepted—the moral of starting a land war in Asia remains mostly the same.

    1. Re:remember the Clipper chip? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Props on the floury language. However, programmable silicon will save you from (co-author of Unix) Ken Thompson's Hack (1984 ACM award acceptance speech, look that up). Thompson describes a process whereby even inspecting open source code does not guarantee the software isn't compromised by a compiler or CPU microcode, etc. However, FPGA could give one the ability to write one's own chipset (and bootstrap a chipset compiler, ala, VHDL), thus virtually eliminating hardware vectors (unless you give your NIC or vidya card unfettered access to RAM, and folks typically do).

      The cat is out of the barn, but the dog and pony show must go on.

  29. Re:Yet Rachel Maddow the freak lost viewers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you always run from APK asking you fair questions giving you a chance to prove him wrong on you https://it.slashdot.org/commen... as you stalk him by unidentifiable anon posts?

  30. Re:Overheard later in the Intel development depart by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Not a 'rootkit'. Sheesh, I'm naturally paranoid, and I'm the one saying this. See: https://it.slashdot.org/commen...

  31. Why didn't Huawai think of this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chinese are such amateurs.

  32. Mr. FAKENAME "pslytely psycho" STFU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject pusscake: Answer my question here w/ proof https://it.slashdot.org/commen... of what I asked you show you have (a good job, a home + vehicle fully paid off etc.) big talker!

    * What's the matter? CAT GOT YOUR TONGUE/SPEECHLESS ARE YOU?? Yes, lol!

    (Afraid to show everyone you're a WASTE of LIFE everyone NOW KNOWS you are? Yes).

    APK

    P.S.=> You're a pitiful little FRUITCAKE hiding behind a FAKE NAME online, RoTfLmAo & you have the NERVE to feed me your offtopic crap, JEALOUS "Lil' Jowie" you DO-NOTHING lazy uneducated unskilled loser? LOL, please... apk

  33. Hmmm by Big+Bipper · · Score: 1

    Huawei is looking to ditch Intel chips in favor of its own chips. I wonder if this is why Washington is so trying to keep Huawei out of new telecom ( they want to ensure Intel IS in new telecom ). It might also explain why the Europeans can't find evidence of Huawei spying. Washington just doesn't want to lose access to Merkel's ( and everyone else's ) phone.

    --
    You live and learn, or you don't learn much.
    1. Re: Hmmm by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      Intel snoops for Uncle Sam. Huawei snoops for Emperor Xi. Everybody knows it.

  34. Re: "Shanghai" Bill is a known liar many times ove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a bore, faggot troll.