|
If you have a modern Intel CPU (released in the last few years) with Intel’s Management Engine built in, you’ve got another complete operating system running that you might not have had any clue was in there: MINIX.
That’s right. MINIX. The Unix-like OS originally developed by Andrew Tanenbaum as an educational tool — to demonstrate operating system programming — is built into every new Intel CPU.
Apparently the year of LinuxUnix on the desktop happened a decade ago without anyone noticing.
Also filed under things nobody expected to ever see again after finishing their OS programming class at school.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
This is absolutely crazy!
Article said: Why on this green Earth is there a web server in a hidden part of my CPU? WHY?
The only reason I can think of is if the makers of the CPU wanted a way to serve up content via the internet without you knowing about it. Combine that with the fact that Ring -3 has 100 percent access to everything on the computer, and that should make you just a teensy bit nervous.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Article said: Why on this green Earth is there a web server in a hidden part of my CPU? WHY?
The only reason I can think of is if the makers of the CPU wanted a way to serve up content via the internet without you knowing about it. Combine that with the fact that Ring -3 has 100 percent access to everything on the computer, and that should make you just a teensy bit nervous
Officially it's almost certainly because if you buy a mobo with a business chipset and pay extra for Intel's remote management tools porting a basic web server was the easiest way to build a network interface for all the stuff that lets sysadmins at MegaConglomoCorp patch your computer wile it's turned off and left on your desk overnight.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: lets sysadmins at MegaConglomoCorp patch your computer wile it's turned off
Yes, I agree that Intel surely isn't using it for nefarious purposes, but the fact that this functionality has been so "back door" and hidden is the problem. Of course, again, maybe they were trying to hide it so blackhats didn't find out either, but it's just crazy that as consumers we buy things that have some functionality that could expose us but we are completely unaware.
|
|
|
|
|
The bigger issue, and something I haven't seen addressed anywhere is under what circumstances is it enabled. If you're not running a business class chipset all the IME stuff should be completely off; just leaving the hardware firmware parts running.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: haven't seen addressed anywhere is under what circumstances is it enabled
Yeah, they don't address it anywhere -- that's the first problem. Agreed.
The second problem is that since they don't address it anywhere, I'm assuming it is on all the time.
And the third problem is, why can't we manage this from the BIOS or something?
Why would they not allow that to be set up by the end user and be off by default?
Well, that makes you think it is because they want their own backdoor communication channel that only they can control. 
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: >Well, that makes you think it is because they want their own backdoor communication channel that only they can control.
The flip side is that if they were doing anything overtly nefarious they'd've been busted by people with packet sniffers shortly after it was rolled out. And with multiple major NSA espionage programs having been busted over the last few years even something rather covert not having been outed is seeming unlikely.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: if they were doing anything overtly nefarious they'd've been busted
I agree. again, I don't think they were doing nefarious activity.
I even understand the mentality behind this as a developer because in many ways they are building resilience into their system. They could've even thought - "Hey, if we put this in there, we can update the chip any time and no one has to know about our bugs."
The thing is they should've just revealed it all so IT people would know and consumers who may have wished to stay ignorant could if they wanted but could then learn about it if necessary.
Again, the point is why doesn't the BIOS have options to turn this on/off?
However, I also understand it could be missing because it would be more work require more computing resources and more labor (to add to BIOS) or whatever. Okay, then at least give us a set of jumpers to physically turn it off on the motherboard.
Great discussion, by the way. 
|
|
|
|
|
Adding hardware to every board would be even more expensive than coding a switch once.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: especially if MINIX, on that super-secret Ring -3 CPU
Are they using "super-secret" in the past tense here? 
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
MINIX nowadays has matured greatly, but colour me surprised.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Kai-Fu Lee, the former head of Google research in China and a top tech investor, sees a huge opportunity to automate routine office work. If your job can be replaced by a program, maybe it's for the best?
After all, John Henry got replaced (well, as the story goes, died, but you know what I mean).
|
|
|
|
|
Just getting rid of so much manual paperwork would be a leap forward.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been writing software that eliminates office donkey work for decades - they seem to find more every year.
The new buzz on the block - software robots to do the repetitive office work. Ffaaaaarrkkk they are scripts you idjits!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
It's hopeless. Technology itself will never defeat regulation that generates imaginary work.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm in favour of automating tasks that are amenable to automation, with the caveat that we need social mechanisms to share the benefits, instead of making the rich even more filthy rich and leaving the majority without a means of earning a living.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
"
making the rich even more filthy rich and leaving the majority without a means of earning a living. " is what's going to happen.  It's been happening for thousands of years - I see no reason for history to abruptly change course now.
'PLAN' is NOT one of those four-letter words.
'When money talks, nobody listens to the customer anymore.'
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: and leaving the majority without a means of earning a living.
I will gladly hire you to sort my shoes for me.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
It's sort of ironic. We used to do useful things, then the bean counters came along and all of a sudden we are doing lots of "routine", repetitive "work." Now they want to automate it. Why don't we just fix the problem and get rid of the routine work?
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Now they want to automate it. Why don't we just fix the problem and get rid of the routine work?
Easy... that would imply common sense, and that's not so common as false intelligence
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Use of outdated productivity suites prevalent among businesses, Spiceworks study finds. If it ain't broke, keep using it until it is
|
|
|
|
|
Lets see a couple articles earlier about needing more intelligent automation
86 percent of executives surveyed globally feel their companies will soon hit a wall and, by 2020, will need greater automation to get work done.
and 2/3rds of businesses are using software from 10 years ago. I'm sure there is no correlation between articles...
modified 6-Nov-17 18:09pm.
|
|
|
|
|
You really think there are significant new features in later Office versions that aid productivity?
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Office 2003 ought to be enough for anybody.
|
|
|
|
|
This is why so many software companies are going to subscriptions.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
