[tpearson-raptor]

It was that strongly worded because I've been fighting the "neutralized" rumor ever since it was started (presumably to try to save x86 market share among security conscious people, given its origin). I'm tired of doing so, and it's unfortunately showing, which means I'll probably have to stop talking about it. That's a loss for everyone, especially those who might unknowingly trust their lives to a hostile machine in certain repressive regimes and pay the ultimate price as a result.

This "neutralized" or "disabled" ME rumor is extremely persistent over literally years, probably due to feeding on what people want to hear versus what the reality of the situation is. Every time it's propagated not only does the person that believes it not get what they think they got, but it harms anyone trying to push for truly open computing vs. half-open computing.

The Cambridge English Dictionary states the following primary definition for the word "neutralize":

"1. to stop something from having an effect"

If you were to actually do that to the ME on a modern Intel system (or the PSP on a modern AMD system), here's what you would see:

<blank screen>

This is because the system will not come out of reset until at least the BUP (and for newer systems more ME modules as well) have started. Those modules are signed, proprietary binaries for which source code will never be released per Intel's statements.

So, we have an apparent conflict. How can the ME be "neutralized", according to the standard English definition, while your machine still starts (thereby proving the ME has had at least some required effect prior to coreboot launching)?