Intel backdoor

>current year
>using Intel Management Engine with AMT instead of coreboot with applied me_cleaner
>practically an NSA rootkit and giant security hole
>Embracing Intel on Sup Forums

How do you defend this?

Other urls found in this thread:

libreboot.org/faq.html#amd
amd.com/en-us/innovations/software-technologies/security
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I don't have a business machine with VPRO so I'm not affected :^)

>NSA is in the backbone
>Literally nothing you do makes any difference now
>Just chill and get on with life

I'd rather have a botnetted computer that works than something running coreboot + shit lunix distros.

>I'd rather have a botnetted computer that works than something running coreboot + shit lunix distros.
I know this is a shitpost but I know there are Redditors on Sup Forums RIGHT NOW that believe this.

Doesn't mean the services you use aren't affected which renders the information you store there susceptible to data breach. Or your workplace.

AMD doesn't have this problem.

I have nothing to hide

>AMD Platform Security Processor
libreboot.org/faq.html#amd

While the feature might be the same on paper the implementation is different and considering how awkward the Intel bug is it's highly unlikely to be repeated with AMD products. It's fallacious to think same feature equals same problems, considering there are many more factors than just the similarity.

Oh and

>AMD Secure Processor is currently only available on select AMD A-Series and AMD E-Series APUs
amd.com/en-us/innovations/software-technologies/security

do you honestly think you're any safer if you use AMD instead?

Confirmed functioning AMD backdoors? 0
Confirmed functioning Intel backdoors? 1 and you don't even need any authentication so that makes it a 2.

gee wizz who has a safer product?

But user, I do have a flashed BIOS with AMT/ME removed.

lol

Neither does Intel.

You don't need CoreBoot to disable AMT/ME.

>Implying something that is not confirmed cannot exist

>implying something that doesn't exist actually exists
>implying the possibility of existing makes it real

Even if it is out there, it's not disclosed, not in the public so the amount of potential attacks percentage wise is surely to be smaller than that of Intel.

With the public knowledge a scriptkiddie can execute remote attacks. I'll die sooner than a scriptkiddie figures out hardware backdoors.

Anyone who intentionally subverts intelligence-gathering methods is going to raise massive red flags with the NSA. Best thing you can do is just relax and hope that they have bigger fish to fry.

>services.msc
>disable everything labeled "Intel"
>who am i quoting?

phew... dodge a bullet there :)

wat does AMT can do ?

According to Zammit, the ME:

>has full access to memory (without the >Parent CPU having any knowledge);
>has full access to the TCP/IP stack;
>can send and receive network packets, >even if the OS is protected by a firewall;
>is signed with an RSA 2048 key that >cannot be brute-forced; and
>cannot be disabled on newer Intel Core2 CPUs.

Which begs the question why hasn't the key been leaked yet.

I have a pentium M on a Acer Travelmate 292LCi
So not supported.

see

You don't even bother protecting your data (and therefore pretty much a big part of your life nowadays) because you fear that you could look guilty?
*That* is how surveillance is limiting your freedom.