Alas. I did not find anything new for myself.
All the same, it is not clear why the data from 0x02 does not always coincide with the visible size.
Example OROM AMD RAIDXpert2 7/8.
It is very rare in other OROMs.
It’s strange.

Added:
Okay. Here is a new tool OROMUtils v0.1.0 to play.
Combines SetDevIO and OROMReplace and + new functions: unpretentious info and OROM extraction.
Will be included in the next version of UBU.

@plutomaniac

It will be necessary to think.

Is it 2171.0?

What is the latest Intel ME firmware version for Sandybridge?

Thanks

Could be 7 or 8/8.1, depends on the one in ur motherboard, as had the manufacturer released in bios version.

Intel Management Engine: Drivers, Firmware & System Tools

Asus P5QL SE
I have updated the modules,microcodes inside.everything seems in working order.
yet here is the catch,bios had ASUSTeK EZ Flash 2 BIOS ROM Utility v3.36 ASUSTeK O.C. Profile Utility v1.36 which i have updated to ASUSTeK EZ Flash 2 BIOS ROM Utility v4.24 ASUSTeK O.C. Profile Utility v2.24 (from here)
it is not working.running it from bios shows a blue screen saying "failed to find the update module",running from startup (alt+f2) comes up the same
I have updated the rest of the roms without touching the Ez flash module but could not flash it.
afudos with the command /ibiosname gave an "error unable to read the rom"
afudos /o command gave me the copy with shortened name.but it was also unreadable. (i was expecting to replace the module with previous one)
so,either that module is faulty (or incompatible) and you may want to change it with another (maybe with this one v1.36 or another you can find) or i have messed it up somewhere
i can provide saved rom copy if needed.in case someone wants to inspect it

ASUS P5QL SE (detailed report)

@onuracengiz

I think i know what your problem is. Those modules can only updated as long as it is in the same main version number. There may be many good reasons for that. To name at least one, my guess is that the flash utility v3.xx was made for legacy Bios only, and starting from v4.xx it is made for UEFI Bios. So it is incompatible. The same principle probably apply for the other module too.

Edit: What i said is valid for some modules but i was wrong about the v4.xx, it is made for legacy Bios. So this means that there is another reason, like a version number fit only a specific line of motherboards or something like that.

yeah i am guessing that's it :)
bios is indeed legacy and the update is probably uefi compliant
other modules are fine,like Realtek PCIe GBE LAN PXE ROM v2.67 (dos)
maybe putting a warning next to it and an alternative might be a good idea (like 1 latest eufi and 1 latest legacy version)



now the guestion is how to get rid of it

@onuracengiz

Like i put in my edit on my last post, i was wrong and it is made for legacy Bios. I can confirm this because i am using it myself in a Crosshair III Formula motherboard that is with a legacy Bios. So it is another reason that is causing the problem with the version number. You can try to change it manually with HxD editor. Be sure to restore the checksum after.

/facepalm :D
dunno if it can be tricked like that,worth a short but i doubt it
edit: did not work

Realtek PCIe GBE difference between lom and nic ?
extracted rom only hints boot agent in hex, both seems identical but not mentioning anything about boot.both files smaller then the extracted (compressed or not)

can anyone identify this,shows as display manager,in hex: ADMV,ADM Core version 3.1.00 ADM custom version 0000 Generic ADM 03/31/2004 type:flatmode engine type:graphics (file) an obvious guess would be its used for basic display capabilities

@onuracengiz

The differrence is a .lom is used internally. This is what is used in a Bios. A .nic is used externally. This is used in an add-on network card you put in your PC. As such, both files are nearly identical but not completely. They are not the same. If you open them side by side and look carefully, there are some differrences. So someone can't just change the extention name and use it.

As for the ADM core, your guess is as good as mine. I don't know where it came from but my guess would be it is some very simple graphic manager. Enough to show the display in a Bios.