Jump to content

Talk:Intel vPro

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Security and Intel vPro PCs

[edit]

I've added some vPro critical info to the "Security and Intel vPro PCs" section, as I have seen no vPro security criticism's in this article which is written like an advertisement from Intel as other's have noted. Please expand this information, also it is an interesting article that is linked.

Here is the text I added:

"However this article: "Big Brother potentially exists right now in our PCs, compliments of Intel's vPro" http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39455/128/ raises many potential security concerns for PC's with vPro. The fact that there is apparently no way to disable vPro on a PC along with the fact that most users cannot detect outside access to their PC via the vPro hardware based technology is a serious concern."

The section raising security concerns regarding Intel vPro was removed by an IP registered to Intel (Oct 5th 2009 edit by IP 192.55.54.39) The usertalk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:192.55.54.39 says: "This IP address, 192.55.54.39, is registered to Intel Corporation; United States; Santa Clara" I am reverting the article to include the security concerns about Intel vPro by the www.tgdaily.com article, as this article still reads like an advertisment from Intel and these are significant security concerns.

The section on vPro security concerns was removed again by the same Intel IP address on Dec 16, 2009, I am re-adding the security concerns section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.77.192 (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

vPro represents a set of technologies, each of which may or may not be disabled. You are probably referring to Intel AMT. There are two potential concerns - privacy (access to the PC without user permission) and vulnerability of the AMT itself. The first one is not an issue due to a simple fact that AMT only works in the corporate network (except CIRA). Prior the AMT can be used, it must be provisioned. It must be activated and configured (usually) in several places - BIOS and MEBx or over a corporate network (that still requires prior activation in BIOS). Only in CIRA mode (see CIRA page) AMT is able to work over the Internet. CIRA is user initiated. In some cases CIRA could be configured to connect based on a timer or maintain a constant connect. However, it requires additional infrastructure to be deployed on the corporate side. This infrastructure is rarely used because it has serious stability issues. Companies like McAfee, Symantec, and Safe Frontier are experimenting with it and some made it more or less workable. The point is that in 99% cases AMT will be used only on a corporate PC but corporate PC has no user privacy by default (e.g. remote management agent, etc.) and AMT would be a least concern.

Regarding the AMT vulnerabilities in the early AMT versions (http://web.it.kth.se/~maguire/DEGREE-PROJECT-REPORTS/100402-Vassilios_Ververis-with-cover.pdf) - they were fixed by Intel. There could be others like in any software, no question about that. BTW, I'm not affiliated with Intel but worked on vPro for the last 6 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlsys1 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How Does This Work?

[edit]

How can it be accessed and re-configured if it's power is off? Wouldn't that necessitate an internal power supply? 68.192.204.19 (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even when the computer is off (but does have power from the wall, what we call "soft-off") the power supply does supply tiny amount of power through special connectors to the motherboard. This standby power allows the computer to boot up to begin with (the power button is a 5v signal switch, not a thick 115/230V power switch) and allows things like wake-on-lan. The same "standby power" (don't confuse it with what Windows calls "standby") is used to power the intel vPro components. 130.89.160.64 (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

vPro Features and Processors

[edit]
  • AFAIK vPro only specifies firmware features (such as remote management and virtualization) and not a specific chip (such as Core 2 Duo) although it does require certain processor features (such as the virtualization instructions or XD bit). The technical docs leave the reader with this impression; the marketing docs may be correct.

Intel Live Chat is referencing this page

[edit]
  • This reads like a technical document from Intel. Seeing as how they have a live chat going on today (Oct. 9th) as an advertisement on Slashdot, and it keep referring to this page for more information, I imagine Intel may have edited it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.242.105.211 (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we ban Intel from editing this page?

[edit]

The question is more of a joke, but last year I ripped out most of the advertising jargon and replaced that banner. A few other people added good information about which specific processors support VPro. Now it's back to the way that it was with all the Intel garbage in it and no real information. I'll start editing it if I get time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumdog (talk • contribs) 17:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardware requirements or marketing requirements?

[edit]

This page mentions certain processors being needed for vPro. However, it doesn't clarify whether it's a requirement that needs to be fulfilled so that a system builder is allowed to put a "vPro" sticker on the case, or whether it's a hardware requirement without which the technical features like intel AMT simply won't work.

The question is terribly relevant, because there are -- for example -- cpus that are much cheaper than the minimum vPro 5 requirement (the fast Core2Duo cpus that are "required" vs the much cheaper intel pentium dual core cpus) that do actually have the technical features like intel VT-d and XD bit and all that fanciness. If it's only marketing, then if a system builder wants to offer intel AMT, but doesn't care about the vPro sticker, he can save lots of money by putting a slower, cheaper processor in there. 130.89.160.64 (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

extension of vPro functionality in 2011 Sandy Bridge chips

[edit]

Intel vPro will be enabled in future (2011 onwards) Sandy Bridge chips, and will be able to disable a PC remotely and/or erase a harddrive remotely over 3G, wifi or ethernet: "Intel's 'Sandy Bridge' Chip to Include vPro Business Features" http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2369110,00.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.77.192 (talk) 05:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article out of date

[edit]

Considering this still references obsolete Core 2 Duo processors and Windows Vista, maybe it's time for a cleanup... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.209.82 (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging of article

[edit]

I have seen some recent news on this chip [1] and I do not see an mention of the privacy concerns raised in this article, before removing any tags, we need to make sure that a balance is restored to the privacy issue. James Michael DuPont (talk) 12:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.tgdaily.com/hardware-opinion/39455-big-brother-potentially-exists-right-now-in-our-pcs-compliments-of-intels-vpr

Hardware reqs.

[edit]

Even for Haswell i7's the info is incorrect if this is correct. Frankly, the whole section should be deleted as Wikipedia is not supposed to be a buyers' guide and which processors are needed for what versions of AMT is not even found in those ark.intel pages. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On one hand, it's sad to see so much work becoming trashed; on the other hand, it's completely useless if not properly maintained. Sigh, my vote goes to deleting that section. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong list of technologies under the vPro "umbrella"

[edit]

Take an official comparison of three of the latest Intel CPUs (link). Note how it specifies whether vPro is supported seperately from Hyperthreading, VT-x, turbo boost etc. In fact one processor has all those technologies, but not vPro. Yet this article still claims that vPro is an umbrella term for these technologies (among others). I assume this means the article is simply wrong, or at least not sufficiently precise. However I only came here because I am unfamiliar with vPro, so I am unable to write a correction. 82.211.209.204 (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Intel vPro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, the archived links from above work fine. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intel admits to vPro critical security flaw, May 2017

[edit]

many apologies. i don't know how to do reference footnotes properly so i just put two references in parens after the direct quote i cut/pasted from the intel link. i trust that the very capabile editors will fix this crude attempt. again i apologize, but this is very important! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.88.143 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Intel vPro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intel Introduces vPro Platform for Revolutionary Business Performance

[edit]

Intel Introduces vPro Platform for Revolutionary Business Performance with these 12th generation Intel Core processors. Rjluna2 (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

100% useless for consumers, even for advanced users?

[edit]

Google search

vpro consumer

didn't give me any results convincing I should pay more for a CPU or ThinkPad with vPro support. As a consumer.

Or will I get significantly less attacks via internet with vPro? Probably not?

91.159.190.165 (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intel_vPro&oldid=1252453364"