PrivSec-dev/privsec.dev
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/PrivSec-dev/privsec.dev synced 2024-11-09 08:21:32 -05:00
Code

More fixes

Browse Source 
Signed-off-by: Tommy <contact@tommytran.io>
This commit is contained in:
Tommy 2024-06-10 07:39:28 -07:00
parent 5eddf1992a
commit c58426dce5
Signed by: Tomster
GPG Key ID: 555C902A34EC968F
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
content/posts/knowledge/Laptop Hardware Security.md
View File

@ -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.