Message-ID: <670c24a7@news.ausics.net>
From: not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev)
Subject: Re: Security?  What "Security"?
Newsgroups: comp.misc
References: <1r19ri6.xu1j411x9lob6N%snipeco.2@gmail.com> <vebe3v$3mu9k$1@dont-email.me> <pan$72f89$db3c5945$13a3a400$eb69ee3f@linux.rocks> <vef0ib$l58$1@panix2.panix.com>
User-Agent: tin/2.0.1-20111224 ("Achenvoir") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.31 (i586))
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.ausics.net
Date: 14 Oct 2024 05:51:04 +1000
Organization: Ausics - https://newsgroups.ausics.net
Lines: 20
X-Complaints: abuse@ausics.net
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.bbs.nz!news.ausics.net!not-for-mail
Bytes: 1481

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> Farley Flud  <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>>The Intel ME can be disabled in the motherboard BIOS.  Whenever
>>I build a new machine it is one of the first things that I
>>disable.
>
> No.  The interface that makes the ME visible to the operating system
> can be disabled, but the ME is still down there doing whatever 
> undocumented things it does.  If it wasn't, the processor would never
> be able to load the microcode in the first place.

Indeed. Wikipedia summarises potentially more effective ways of
disabling some IME functions using me_cleaner. Installation is
risky though so I haven't tried it myself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Disabling_the_ME

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#