On 8/19/20 6:45 AM, 54th Parallel wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 August 2020 at 00:15:08 UTC+8 Robert Spigler wrote:
This is the real solution for the Intel problem :)
https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-issues/issues/4318
I believe IBM stated they also have protections against the Rowhammer
attacks
On Wednesday, 19 August 2020 at 00:15:08 UTC+8 Robert Spigler wrote:
> This is the real solution for the Intel problem :)
>
> https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-issues/issues/4318
>
> I believe IBM stated they also have protections against the Rowhammer
> attacks
>
I'm all for having Qubes on
This is the real solution for the Intel problem :)
https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-issues/issues/4318
I believe IBM stated they also have protections against the Rowhammer
attacks
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"qubes-users" group.
To
On Sunday, 16 August 2020 at 01:14:08 UTC+8 Chris Laprise wrote:
> I'm not going to get into details now, but the short story is Intel
> haven't addressed all the sidechannel vulnerabilities, and the long and
> varied trend of Intel vulns points to a fundamentally flawed
> implementation...
On Saturday, 15 August 2020 at 14:39:32 UTC+8 a...@qubes-os.org wrote:
>
> Then don't use it! :)
>
With the new look that makes it so much harder to use (top posting is
default now) and replying to multiple people in a single post is a pain, so
I just might give Thunderbird or Mutt a try.
On 8/13/20 10:32 PM, 54th Parallel wrote:
> Since the lions' share of Qubes installs are Intel based, I think a
> side-channel attack would be the most likely way to breach a Qubes
> system.
I thought Spectre and Meltdown have been dealt with by shutting off
hyperthreading and updating
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 2020-08-13 9:32 PM, 54th Parallel wrote:
> P.S. I'm not liking this new Google Groups look
Then don't use it! :)
"While the mailing lists are implemented as Google Group web forums, a
Google account is in no way required, expected, or
> Since the lions' share of Qubes installs are Intel based, I think a
> side-channel attack would be the most likely way to breach a Qubes
> system.
I thought Spectre and Meltdown have been dealt with by shutting off
hyperthreading and updating microcode? Also, the latest CPUs have Spectre
On 8/13/20 10:59 AM, fiftyfourthparal...@gmail.com wrote:
If you were tasked with remotely hacking into a default but updated
Qubes OS system (installation configuration of 4.0.3, but with updated
templates and dom0), how would you do it? What would you attack? The
precise objective (e.g.
On Thursday, 13 August 2020 23:09:04 UTC+8, disrupt_the_flow wrote:
>
> On August 13, 2020 2:59:37 PM UTC, "fiftyfour...@gmail.com "
> > wrote:
>>
>> If you were tasked with remotely hacking into a default but updated Qubes
>> OS system (installation configuration of 4.0.3, but with updated
On August 13, 2020 2:59:37 PM UTC, "fiftyfourthparal...@gmail.com"
wrote:
>If you were tasked with remotely hacking into a default but updated
>Qubes
>OS system (installation configuration of 4.0.3, but with updated
>templates
>and dom0), how would you do it? What would you attack? The
If you were tasked with remotely hacking into a default but updated Qubes
OS system (installation configuration of 4.0.3, but with updated templates
and dom0), how would you do it? What would you attack? The precise
objective (e.g. retrieve a PGP key from a vault, read a text document,
12 matches
Mail list logo
