Talk:Intel Management Engine: Difference between revisions
→Further details requested: new section |
|||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
:I think we need something better than an advertisement for a competing product. A basic tactic in an ad is to undermine the competition's credibility. If this statement is reasonable I think someone else must say something similar in a more neutral context. I agree, Intel did not say "there is no backdoor" only "we do not install backdoors" but this phrasing could as easily come down to epistemology as avoiding making a statement. Also, if they had only said there was no backdoor in these particular products it would leave open the question of whether there was in any Intel product. So I don't think it is really an unreasonable way to address the issue. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 00:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC) |
:I think we need something better than an advertisement for a competing product. A basic tactic in an ad is to undermine the competition's credibility. If this statement is reasonable I think someone else must say something similar in a more neutral context. I agree, Intel did not say "there is no backdoor" only "we do not install backdoors" but this phrasing could as easily come down to epistemology as avoiding making a statement. Also, if they had only said there was no backdoor in these particular products it would leave open the question of whether there was in any Intel product. So I don't think it is really an unreasonable way to address the issue. [[User:DIYeditor|—DIYeditor]] ([[User talk:DIYeditor|talk]]) 00:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC) |
||
:<small>''"Intel does not put back doors in its products nor do our products give Intel control or access to computing systems without the explicit permission of the end user."'' </small> Is this the intel quote which Rtc is referring to? I'm assuming so... [[Special:Contributions/67.233.34.199|67.233.34.199]] ([[User talk:67.233.34.199|talk]]) 15:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Further details requested == |
== Further details requested == |
||
Revision as of 15:17, 5 January 2018
Good reference from Slashdot?
Slashdot has an entry from someone who apparently was on the teams that designed the ME, quote:
"Actually on ME9 Intel changed the kernel. In ME6 they changed the platform layout.
- ME < 6: GMCH northbridge and southbridge. ME lived in the GMCH and had full access to RAM even in S5 (off) system state. Kernel is based on ThreadX. CPU is ARM core.
- ME 6-8, same kernel, but moved to PCH (formerly southbridge) and the CPU gined the GM part of GMCH. Northbridge removed from platforms. ME loses access to RAM in all states besides S0 (on) and has to make do with PRAM on PCH.
- ME9+: ME now runs on Minix and Quark CPU. Vulnerabilities become an issue.
- ME10: internal struggle for dominance between kernel and AMT teams (based in US and Israel respectively) leads to departures. (including mine)
- ME11 (12?): US team is disbanded."
From: https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11385971&cid=55595459
Worthwhile with someone with knowledge to incorporate?
- Master Of Ninja (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Intel quote
The Intel quote is a classical non-denial denial spin. I think it is very problematic to put this quote into the article without anything else to counterbalance it. I agree that the source I provided is not the best one and it is clearly speculation, without providing any evidence. However, I think Intel spin + Open hardware producer speculation is more NPOV and less problematic than Intel spin alone. --rtc (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
- I think we need something better than an advertisement for a competing product. A basic tactic in an ad is to undermine the competition's credibility. If this statement is reasonable I think someone else must say something similar in a more neutral context. I agree, Intel did not say "there is no backdoor" only "we do not install backdoors" but this phrasing could as easily come down to epistemology as avoiding making a statement. Also, if they had only said there was no backdoor in these particular products it would leave open the question of whether there was in any Intel product. So I don't think it is really an unreasonable way to address the issue. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- "Intel does not put back doors in its products nor do our products give Intel control or access to computing systems without the explicit permission of the end user." Is this the intel quote which Rtc is referring to? I'm assuming so... 67.233.34.199 (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Further details requested
Article currently says:
The ME has its own MAC and IP address for the out-of-band interface, with direct access to the Ethernet controller; one portion of the Ethernet traffic is diverted to the ME even before reaching the host's operating system
- The references to large PDFs would benefit from page numbers.
- Is the IP address acquired by DHCP or hardcoded? If hardcoded, how is it unique and routable? If DHCP, wouldn't this "second interface" show up in the DHCP server's logs?
- What port(s) does the ME use for I/O?
- Is there some reason why these additional IP addresses and ports would not show up on a routine network scan, e.g. "nmap"?
This information, if someone could add an encyclopedic source, may help owners discover to what extent these features are enabled on their machines. 72.208.150.248 (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)