SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Hugo Landau has written a blog post about why Intel will never let hardware owners control the Management Engine. The Intel Managment Engine (ME) is a secondary microprocessor ensconced in recent Intel x86 chips, running an Intel-signed, proprietary, binary blob which provides remote access over the network as well as direct access to memory and peripherals. Because of the code signing restrictions enforced by the hardware, it cannot be modified or replaced by the user.
Intel/AMD will never allow machine owners to control the code executing on the ME/PSP because they have decided to build a business on preventing you from doing so. In particular, it's likely that they're actually contractually obligated not to let you control these processors.
The reason is that Intel literally decided to collude with Hollywood to integrate DRM into their CPUs; they conspired with media companies to lock you out of certain parts of your machine. After all, this is the company that created HDCP.
This DRM functionality is implemented on the ME/PSP. Its ability to implement DRM depends on you not having control over it, and not having control over the code that runs on it. Allowing you to control the code running on the ME would directly compromise an initiative which Intel has been advancing for over a decade.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @10:44AM (1 child)
It's not a secret; Intel is upfront about it.
See here:
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 24 2018, @12:47PM
A blog post and an obscure e-book isn't likely to be sufficient to meet the legal standard of informed consent.
I think the real question here, is: "Has anybody reverse engineered this to the level where they can demonstrate actual use cases in a courtroom?"
Because it probably is exactly what it looks like. And while they may have posted on some obscure blog, I can recall no one ever signing a contract defering their reservation of rights to Intel. In consequence any equipment that they own that implements this, and has functionally changed service on behalf of a third party, could reasonably be interpreted by a jury as violating wiretapping statues.
And given the frequency with which people claim other peoples shit on Youtube, it is highly likely that DRM claims have been falsified. So while some courts may regard digitally violating the sanctity of a domicile, as something doesn't constitute sufficient harm to produce standing, there are almost surely cases where the DRM clients, have harmed eachother.
It isn't about paranoia, it is about the law. Or more to the point, the unwillingness of the judiciary to hear cases where digital civil rights are concerned.