Re: [coreboot] Anyone got an opinion, technical or otherwise, on this?

[Vadim Bendebury]

I wonder if anyone ever completely trusted AMT - maybe some naive excessive
cool-aid drinkers :)

-vb

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:27 AM, ron minnich  wrote:
> I wonder if anyone is going to completely trust AMT after this problem. It
> goes back almost 10 years. So for all those users who had it on for almost
> 10 years, the question becomes, how much did we lose and when did we lose
> it? The answer? We'll never know. Are we still owned? We don't know. Can we
> actually trust any reflash procedure, if the ME is owned while we try to
> reflash? Well, I hope so, but how can we know?
>
> It's a worrisome situation.
>
> ron
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 11:01 AM Patrick Georgi via coreboot <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > Semi-Accurate only claims accuracy according to what's on the box. The
> > official documentation of the issue can be found at
> > https://security-center.intel.com/advisory.aspx?intelid=INTEL-SA-00075
> >
> > It looks like a software bug in the AMT firmware. Therefore:
> > No AMT (eg on non-business consumer devices) -> no (bug | exploit).
> > Present but disabled AMT (eg. on business devices without AMT
> >
> > enrollment) -> no (bug | exploit). (although there's apparently a way
> > to enable AMT unsupervised under some circumstances with some level of
> > local access. or something.)
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > 2017-05-02 19:31 GMT+02:00 John Lewis :
> > > https://semiaccurate.com/2017/05/01/remote-security-exploit-
> >
> > 2008-intel-platforms/
> > > The article says "all" Intel boards since 2008 are locally vulnerable
> > > (ME exploit), but the Intel advisory (linked within) says consumer
> > > devices are okay.
> > >
> > > What the article says about even low end devices still having the
> > > features albeit turned "off" rings true to me, based on stuff I've read
> > > here and elsewhere. What's your take (bearing in mind the technical
> > > details aren't available, yet)?