Re: Y2K was real: was Major Intel Memory Vulnerability

I'm not sure how one can compare Y2K with Meltdown and Spectre. We know there was a point when Y2K would become a problem. That was 1/1/2000... Meltdown and Spectre are different. Millions of computers and maybe even more devices and embedded systems are affected today. We have no time

Re: Y2K was real: was Major Intel Memory Vulnerability

The big difference is that was mostly resolved via software. Intel issue is much harder. On Jan 5, 2018 11:48 PM, "Steve Litt" wrote: > On Fri, 05 Jan 2018 11:27:38 -0700 > Eric Oyen wrote: > > > oh boy. This sounds like another Y2K problem,

Y2K was real: was Major Intel Memory Vulnerability

On Fri, 05 Jan 2018 11:27:38 -0700 Eric Oyen wrote: > oh boy. This sounds like another Y2K problem, only this one has some > reality about it and real consequences. Y2K was completely real, and would have had real consequences if our society hadn't taken three years to fix

Re: OT: Major Intel Memory Vulnerability - worse than Y2K?

well, that was a known factor well ahead of time. This situation is different. Intel KNEW there might be a problem with this method of memory processing. They just didn't know how big a problem it could turn out to be. And all of these chips are in everything from routers, to servers to

Re: Major Intel Memory Vulnerability

I think my next car will be some old iron without any of the modern electronic On 2018-01-05 11:40, Stephen Partington wrote: > I still do not want my car to be the massively online thing that car makers > seem to think is the bes thing ever. cause they have no clue what security > is. >

OT: Major Intel Memory Vulnerability - worse than Y2K?

So, Eric — You don’t think Y2K had consequences? :) It just happened to be a raft of stupid bugs that the industry dealt with in time. I was coding around Y2K bugs as early as 1979, as were lots of other people, just matter of factly planning on Y2K, but some of the older and more primitive

Re: Major Intel Memory Vulnerability

Spectre also affected AMD. Nobody is safe. Regards, Jason From: Stephen Partington <cryptwo...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 11:40 AM To: Main PLUG discussion list Subject: Re: Major Intel Memory Vulnerability ​I still do not want

Re: Major Intel Memory Vulnerability

​I still do not want my car to be the massively online thing that car makers seem to think is the bes thing ever. cause they have no clue what security is.​ Leave my car dumb, gime a bluetooth interface to my phone and leave me be... And get off my lawn :-P On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 10:47 AM,

Re: Major Intel Memory Vulnerability

oh boy. This sounds like another Y2K problem, only this one has some reality about it and real consequences. -eric from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Truth or Consequences Dept. On Jan 5, 2018, at 9:39 AM, techli...@phpcoderusa.com wrote: > > I think they have a moral

Re: Major Intel Memory Vulnerability

Am 05. Jan, 2018 schwätzte Stephen Partington so: It is certainly a deciding factor in my desire to move to AMD on my CPU rollout. Trying to imagine a car salesperson knowing which CPUs are in a particular model and utterfly failing. Luckily IoT generally has so many holes that we don't need

Re: Major Intel Memory Vulnerability

>From: techli...@phpcoderusa.com >I think they have a moral obligation to destroy all effected chips that are in >the pipeline.  Dell and others need to stop sales and not continue selling >until the CPU is fixed. Not happening. Nor is Intel issuing a recall.

Re: Major Intel Memory Vulnerability

It is certainly a deciding factor in my desire to move to AMD on my CPU rollout. On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 9:39 AM, wrote: > > I think they have a moral obligation to destroy all effected chips that > are in the pipeline. Dell and others need to stop sales and not

Re: Major Intel Memory Vulnerability

I think they have a moral obligation to destroy all effected chips that are in the pipeline. Dell and others need to stop sales and not continue selling until the CPU is fixed. This is much bigger than we know. Almost every computer is effected. The intermittent fix is software. What keeps

Re: Major Intel Memory Vulnerability

On Thu Jan 04 18, der.hans wrote: Am 03. Jan, 2018 schwätzte Matthew Crews so: moin moin, good writeup on memory management and how this is an issue from before the bug details were released and a follow up article from the same guy about the bugs.

Re: Major Intel Memory Vulnerability

Am 03. Jan, 2018 schwätzte Matthew Crews so: moin moin, good writeup on memory management and how this is an issue from before the bug details were released and a follow up article from the same guy about the bugs.

Re: Major Intel Memory Vulnerability

Came across this Google blog article where they claim AMD is affected as well. https://security.googleblog.com/ On 2018-01-03 16:09, der.hans wrote: Am 02. Jan, 2018 schwätzte Matthew Crews so: moin moin, the bugs now have names and logos, let the marketing begin.

Re: Major Intel Memory Vulnerability

I would be more concerned IF the next gen CPU has this fixed. All's I know is that if Intel wants to fix the very next gen, they will need to scrap a lot of silicon that has already been finished. Sent from [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com), Swiss-based encrypted email. Original

Re: Major Intel Memory Vulnerability

Am 02. Jan, 2018 schwätzte Matthew Crews so: moin moin, the bugs now have names and logos, let the marketing begin. http://www.zdnet.com/article/security-flaws-affect-every-intel-chip-since-1995-arm-processors-vulnerable/ ### Am I affected by the bug? Most certainly, yes. ### Rumors thus

Re: Major Intel Memory Vulnerability

Phoronix posted some synthetic benchmarks with the patch applied. The main applications that seem affected are things like database software, while things like code compiling and video encoding are barely affected. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article=linux-415-x86pti=2 Sent from

Re: Major Intel Memory Vulnerability

I read the performance hit for Intel chips will be %35 or so after the fix. > On Jan 2, 2018, at 7:49 PM, Eric Oyen wrote: > > so, does this mean that the UEFI might get patched first? OR, does the OS > ecology have to do so first? Lastly, how much of a performance hit

Re: Major Intel Memory Vulnerability

so, does this mean that the UEFI might get patched first? OR, does the OS ecology have to do so first? Lastly, how much of a performance hit will this represent? -eric from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, the "oh look! yet another bug!" Dept. On Jan 2, 2018, at 3:39 PM, Matthew

RE: Major Intel Memory Vulnerability

: Major Intel Memory Vulnerability https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/ In a nutshell, it is a major security flaw in Intel hardware dating back a decade that is requiring a complete kernel rewrite for every major OS (Linux, Windows, Mac, etc) in order to patch out

Re: Major Intel Memory Vulnerability

Interestingly the last line of the article says "A spokesperson for Intel was not available for comment." On 2018-01-02 15:39, Matthew Crews wrote: > https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/ > > In a nutshell, it is a major security flaw in Intel hardware dating back

Re: Major Intel Memory Vulnerability

Am 02. Jan, 2018 schwätzte Matthew Crews so: moin moin, thanks! I was just looking to see if there was an update on the story :). http://pythonsweetness.tumblr.com/post/169166980422/the-mysterious-case-of-the-linux-page-table ciao, der.hans

Major Intel Memory Vulnerability

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/ In a nutshell, it is a major security flaw in Intel hardware dating back a decade that is requiring a complete kernel rewrite for every major OS (Linux, Windows, Mac, etc) in order to patch out. It cannot be patched out with a CPU