[Freedombox-discuss] Without software collusion

Rick Hodgin foxmuldrster at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 28 20:11:08 UTC 2012

Good to know.  Such a statement also lends credence to the fact that Intel IS only using this technology in businesses, the locally connected LAN networks aiding by routing out-of-band packets to their machines so they can be "fixed" when the fail.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

--- On Thu, 6/28/12, Tim Schmidt <timschmidt at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Tim Schmidt <timschmidt at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Freedombox-discuss] Without software collusion
> To: "Ben Mendis" <dragonwisard at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Rick Hodgin" <foxmuldrster at yahoo.com>, freedombox-discuss at lists.alioth.debian.org, freebirds at hushmail.com
> Date: Thursday, June 28, 2012, 4:04 PM
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Ben
> Mendis <dragonwisard at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Indeed, vPro can only work if the adversary is on the
> same network
> > segment and send packets that the NIC can hear. We're
> all professionals
> > here, we know that security works in layers. If you
> stick a $25 router
> > in front of your box then there's no way for those vPro
> control packets
> > to reach your NIC, so there's no way for vPro to get
> activated.
> Going further, every technology like vPro that I've taken
> the time to
> study has _explicitly_ made use of a non-routable protocol
> for
> communications as a security measure.  Meaning they
> don't work over
> the internet _by design_, and only work on local networks.
> --tim

More information about the Freedombox-discuss mailing list