From c58426dce551535e8ed5756d71e3cbfd162f8184 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tommy Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 07:39:28 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] More fixes Signed-off-by: Tommy --- content/posts/knowledge/Laptop Hardware Security.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/content/posts/knowledge/Laptop Hardware Security.md b/content/posts/knowledge/Laptop Hardware Security.md index aed1b52..f655fdc 100644 --- a/content/posts/knowledge/Laptop Hardware Security.md +++ b/content/posts/knowledge/Laptop Hardware Security.md @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ Here are some facts about it: - It is detectable. An easy way is to just go visit port 16992/tcp on your device. - To be extra sure, you can also run `nmap` to scan the port from a different device. -This is not something hidden, people have accidentally [run into it on social media](https://mastodon.lilysthings.org/@i_lost_my_bagel/112228352384742242). +This is not something hidden, people have accidentally [run into it](https://mastodon.lilysthings.org/@i_lost_my_bagel/112228352384742242) on social media. For attack surface reduction, you should absolutely disable it. With that said, don't let the scary claims about "remote management" by the Free Software Foundation spook you - if some sort of hypothetical backdoor actually implemented this way, it is not hard to detect. There are better ways to implement a backdoor as discussed above, and if you don't trust the CPU vendor you should avoid them as a whole, not just the vPro model.