Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You cannot neutralize and disable the PSP spying module in AMD processors, while in Intel ones you can do that with ME: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Assert....


There's this great talk from a CCC about reverse engeneering the PSP: Uncover, Understand, Own - Regaining Control Over Your AMD CPU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKH5nGLgi08

At 47:10, they mention that they haven't found anything evil. Ofc, this isn't hard proof, but if I trust anyone's answer, then it's theirs. I think the likelihood of it being malicious is nonzero, but small enough that I'd condemn active backdoors into the realm of conspiracy theories.

There's always the possibility of it being exploited by others, but c'mon: Basically ANY other exploit would be way easier to distribute and activate than one in the PSP.


As much as I love speculating about backdoors and NSA wiretapping, I seriously doubt these MEs are malicious. At this point, managing a modern x86 is tough work, especially if you want to run virtualization, complex threading and maintain high efficiency. It makes total sense that there are mandatory supervisor chips at this point, and without any evidence that these chips are "phoning home," I simply have to assume that it's purpose is virtualized KVM for remote management. Worst case scenario, the CIA wakes up my laptop while I'm asleep, big whoop.


It does not even matter if they are actively malicious. They are closed, non-removable, with proven vulnerabilities (which not only CIA can use). What else do you need?


How do you know that the closed CPU microcode that all modern AMD and Intel CPU's use don't have backdoors and vulnerabilities?


I don't know that, but judging from the amount of code I would say it's less likely than in Intel ME.


How is that different from the Intel ones? Can they not be turned back on or injected again with a new ME?


If you're not getting the same consumer hardware security that NSA gets by default, you're cheated on. That's my opinion.

https://www.csoonline.com/article/3220476/researchers-say-no...


> managing a modern x86 is tough work

No. You can boot and run an x86 without ME and most of that other stuff.

> It makes total sense that there are mandatory supervisor chips at this point

ME, secure boot, UEFI have nothing to do with virtualization.


Bravo, I wish I could be this cavalier about a grave security issue.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: