[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Libreboot] Can libreboot help to escape the Intel AMT/ME nightmare?

From: The Gluglug
Subject: Re: [Libreboot] Can libreboot help to escape the Intel AMT/ME nightmare?
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:39:59 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.3.0

Hash: SHA1

Hold on to your X201. That is also a candidate for libreboot (work is
already underway to remove the ME there as well, but it's a harder
task on this machine)

On 05/02/15 14:38, The Gluglug wrote:
> Hi,
> The ME (and AMT) is deleted in libreboot. Here is the page that 
> explains it:
> On 05/02/15 14:14, Alexander wrote:
>> Thank you Marcus!
>>> Dear Alexander.
>>>> This is a question to help me understand what libreboot can
>>>> do and what not. First off I want to thank all the
>>>> contributers and developers for their time and effort and
>>>> make clear that when I ask about "the limitations of
>>>> libreboot/coreboot" I am well aware that they are reflect the
>>>> obstacles put in the way of the developers which do anyway
>>>> the very very best. Thank you.
>>> I would not declare AMT bad/biased in general. What we would
>>> need is a transparent free implementation of the protcol and
>>> options to switch it off, if unneeded.
>> I accept you understanding. My - hence personal - bias to think
>> of AMT as highly undesireable ist that 1) it is not necessary for
>> the set of tasks I use my computer for 2) it is according to
>> several sources increasing the attack surface and some Ring -3
>> rootkits would. Attacks could take place during S3 state which is
>> 18h a day of my computer. For me personaly the trade-off for AMT
>> is bad.
>> You are of course right that any transparency would at least ease
>>  the worring thought, while not discard completely of the issue.
>> My interest in libreboot is hence to more reliably being able to 
>> disable this - negative functionality. Thanks for sharing the 
>> insight and also great for your contact with the Intel
>> developer.
>>> I already tried to get in contact with Ylian, who is a Free 
>>> Software developer at Intel and who did most of the AMT/ME
>>> code, but he did not reply yet.
>>>> I am a victim of Intel AMT. I use a Thinkpad x201 (which is
>>>> a vPro
>>> iCore
>>>> system) and by this may very well assume to be hacked by the 
>>>> NSA which can via Intel use the ARC chip in the vPro Intel
>>>> AMT. This is very sad, moreso that I have just recently
>>>> become aware of this threat.
>>>> My question henceforth is that if I made the purchase of a 
>>>> Thinkpad X200 (which for some bad luck can only be bought 
>>>> second hand, and makes trust even less as the previous owner 
>>>> can have tampared with the system), can I "clean the system
>>>> of some of its evil spying and manipulation and
>>>> criminalization technology?"
>>> I don't get your point here. Why do you think buying a used 
>>> device might make trust even less? Do you really trust the 
>>> vendor/shipper?
>> I think you expect me to not trust the vendor,shipper, correct. 
>> Buying second hand, was for me the combination of being tricked
>> not only by the original vendor/shipper, but also by all those 
>> individuals that had contact/access to the device. The longer
>> the existence of the device the more mischief I can think of
>> (maybe my mind is a little bit to "evil")
>>> Besides that, with flashing Libreboot, you will overwrite any 
>>> existing code in the BIOS, so at least this should be Free.
>>> That does not mean, backdoors could not be included in silicon
>>> or any other part of the hardware (e.g. this one: 
>>> on a MacBook 
>>> Air).
>> If I understand your explanation correctly I need to be working 
>> with the hardware part / the chips on the mainboard directly and
>> by this "not via software, but hardware flashing" I can be more 
>> confident to get rid of any potential previously existing
>> malware BIOS etc. Please do not feel offended by the assumption
>> that each and every component might be necessarily being tempered
>> with, I know to be reasonible, merely I think at the level of
>> understanding of those who attempt to develop and use libreboot
>> it is clear that the possibility for some evilness insight of the
>> BIOS is feasible. Indeed one might easily modify the source as to
>> include some feature that is undesired, I am certain, the code is
>> there.
>>> In the end, we would need Free Hardware Specifications 
>>> (including chipset/processor), but this is still a long way to 
>>> go.
>>>> Is there an indication that a flashing the bios with
>>>> libreboot will allow to disable Intel AMT? If this was so, is
>>>> there any technical mean (i.e. a multimeter or other
>>>> technical device, which would allow me to confirm this with
>>>> some reliability).
>>> As said, Libreboot does not ship AMT at all atm.
>> What does this mean "not shipping". Does it mean that the
>> software related to the ATM is kept as it is, or that ATM is
>> effectively disabled. Reports have been that on Thinkpads even
>> the "disabled ATM in the BIOS" did not really mean that it would
>> not be running.
>>>> For good or for bad there is some paranoia. Is there any way
>>>> to gain some trust to other users? I think no other technical
>>>> mean would allow to get trust, than to bunch up with other
>>>> users to get to know each other personnaly well enough and to
>>>> henceforth trustfully devide the work of auditing.
>>> Yes, a standardised auditing process could be 
>>> possible/established. As far as I know, there is no plan to do 
>>> so, yet.
>>> Greetings Marcus
>>> PS: There is something broken with your line-breaks
>> thanks for the hint. I think I need to switch from Thunderbird. 
>> Viele Dank dir Marcus!
Version: GnuPG v1


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]