5 ms·

From: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/10/in-a-first-researchers-extract-secret-key-used-to-encrypt-intel-cpu-code/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/10/

From: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/10/in-a-first-researchers-extract-secret-key-used-to-encrypt-intel-cpu-code/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/10/in-a-first-researche... "In a statement, Intel officials wrote: ... we do not rely on obfuscation of information behind red unlock as a security measure." (BTW, I work on Linux at Intel, I'm not posting this in any official capacity)

marcodiego 4y ago
> I work on Linux at Intel, I'm not posting this in any official capacity Oh, great! Isn't there a way where intel could provide keys so we could get rid of IME even if it means we won't be able to play DRM'ed content?
- sabas123 4y ago
  IIRC IME also does a lot of core functionality like power regulation. Unlike many in this thread probably think, it does provide a lot of core functionality that you probably don't want removed.
  - bogomipz 4y ago
    Interesting. So IME handles dynamic voltage and frequency scaling(DVFS) or cores then?
    - ta988 4y ago
      Thermal management, power gating, scheduling... It does a lot.
  - salawat 4y ago
    The contention, from the User standpoint, however, is the network stack, potential to phone home, and the unrestricted access to the global machine state, combined with the fact, it is not documented or disclosed. It's one thing to have that and be up front and open on it. Get secretive, and you're creating a massive source of unknown unknowns for everyone involved. And like it or not, if you won't/can't be transparent about it, either A) It'd take too long to document, which suggests there may be room for simplification B) you're doing something that if it saw the light of day, would cause outrage, likely because you shouldn't be doing it C) You're holding back the state-of-the-art for the sake of securing a revenue stream. None of these inspires a excess of confidence/trust.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- intelVISA 4y ago
  Doubt the NSA would allow it, best option is RISCV if you don't want Intel's ring-3 backdoor.

marcodiego 4y ago

> I work on Linux at Intel, I'm not posting this in any official capacity Oh, great! Isn't there a way where intel could provide keys so we could get rid of IME even if it means we won't be able to play DRM'ed content?

sabas123 4y ago
IIRC IME also does a lot of core functionality like power regulation. Unlike many in this thread probably think, it does provide a lot of core functionality that you probably don't want removed.
- bogomipz 4y ago
  Interesting. So IME handles dynamic voltage and frequency scaling(DVFS) or cores then?
  - ta988 4y ago
    Thermal management, power gating, scheduling... It does a lot.
- salawat 4y ago
  The contention, from the User standpoint, however, is the network stack, potential to phone home, and the unrestricted access to the global machine state, combined with the fact, it is not documented or disclosed. It's one thing to have that and be up front and open on it. Get secretive, and you're creating a massive source of unknown unknowns for everyone involved. And like it or not, if you won't/can't be transparent about it, either A) It'd take too long to document, which suggests there may be room for simplification B) you're doing something that if it saw the light of day, would cause outrage, likely because you shouldn't be doing it C) You're holding back the state-of-the-art for the sake of securing a revenue stream. None of these inspires a excess of confidence/trust.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
intelVISA 4y ago
Doubt the NSA would allow it, best option is RISCV if you don't want Intel's ring-3 backdoor.