Intel Management Engine (IME), embedded in every Intel chipset since 2008, is an autonomous microcontroller running the Minix OS with full access to system memory, network, and storage — even when the computer appears to be off. It operates below the operating system, making detection impossible. In 2017, critical vulnerability CVE-2017-5689 allowed unauthorized remote code execution. Security researchers have compared it to a built-in backdoor. AMD has a similar subsystem (Platform Security Processor) with its own vulnerabilities.
“There is a hidden computer inside your computer that has full access to everything and works even when your PC is off. It could be used as a backdoor by intelligence agencies.”
From “crazy” to confirmed
The Claim Is Made
This is the moment they called it crazy.
When security researcher Damien Zammit and others began publishing detailed analyses of Intel's Management Engine around 2015-2016, they faced a familiar response: dismissal. Intel and major computer manufacturers treated warnings about the ME as technically misguided or alarmist. Most users had never heard of it. Most didn't care.
The Intel Management Engine is a separate computer inside your computer. It runs its own operating system—Minix, a Unix variant—and operates completely independently of Windows, macOS, or Linux. It has its own processor, memory, and network access. This wasn't a secret, exactly. Intel had disclosed the ME's existence in technical documentation. But the full scope of what it could do, and how it functioned below the user's awareness or control, remained largely unknown outside of security circles.
The original claims made by researchers were straightforward: the ME has complete access to system memory, can monitor network traffic, can access storage drives, and continues running even when a computer appears to be powered off. It operates at a privilege level higher than even the operating system itself. Because it runs below the OS, users cannot see what it's doing or stop it from doing it. For critics, this sounded like describing a built-in backdoor that every Intel user carried unknowingly.
Intel's public position was that the ME was a necessary security and management feature. It allowed IT administrators to remotely manage business computers, even if they crashed. It assisted with system recovery. The company emphasized that the ME was hardened against unauthorized access and that critics misunderstood its function. Security concerns, Intel suggested, were theoretical rather than practical.
Then came 2017. Researchers at Positive Technologies discovered CVE-2017-5689, a critical vulnerability in the Management Engine that would later be called "Intel's remote code execution nightmare." The vulnerability allowed an attacker with network access to execute arbitrary code with the ME's privileges. An attacker didn't even need valid user credentials. The exploit worked on nearly every Intel system manufactured since 2008. This wasn't theoretical anymore. This was a measurable, reproducible security failure in the very system Intel had assured everyone was secure.
Get the 5 biggest receipts every week, straight to your inbox — plus an exclusive PDF: The Top 10 Conspiracy Theories Proven True in 2025-2026. No spam. No agenda. Just the papers they couldn't hide.
You just read "Every Intel CPU since 2008 contains a hidden processor (ME) …". We send ones like this every week.
No one's said anything yet. Be the first to drop your take.
Confirmed: They Were Right
The truth comes out. Officially documented.
Confirmed: They Were Right
The truth comes out. Officially documented.
The implications rippled outward. If the ME could be exploited remotely, then the original concerns about what the ME could do—access memory, networks, storage—weren't exaggeration. They were factual descriptions of capabilities that had now been weaponized. A researcher writing for Hackaday documented the process of actually disabling the ME on modern laptops, confirming that yes, disabling it was technically possible, and yes, this fact suggested the system had been designed with very few safeguards against determined users.
AMD, Intel's primary competitor, had implemented a similar system called the Platform Security Processor. It carried its own vulnerabilities and raised its own questions.
The Intel Management Engine case reveals something important about technical transparency and institutional trust. Intel wasn't necessarily lying when they described the ME's function. They simply weren't fully accounting for the risks inherent in designing a system that operates beyond user control and oversight. That gap between assurance and reality is where trust erodes. Today, researchers continue working on tools to disable or limit the ME, treating it as a known risk rather than an imaginary one.
