Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel CPUs Reportedly Vulnerable To New "SPOILER" Speculative Attack

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #71
    Originally posted by Wojcian View Post
    No, I've just seen analysis and reports, so I have enough knowledge to say it was a false flag. When comes to USS Liberty there's something more about it. I respect every soldier who serves well his country and who doesn't harm innocent people (being a soldiers is not just about killing, but saving and helping others). By mentioning the X files I can safely say you neither have a honor nor respect to victims of these acts of war.

    Ps. It seem you didn't bother to acknowledge it's USA CPUs company that polluted most of the countries in the world by potential backdoors in every possible IT segment. By accusing China or Iran in this case you just show your words are trash.
    Lolwhat? How is an attack on a ship that occurred in 1967, relevant to a discussion about security vulnerabilities in IT equipment?

    Don't like intel CPU's? Feel free to switch to Longsoon or KaiXian or Dhyana. Or just use AMD, as these new SPOILER vulnerabilities don't apply. Never attribute to malice, what can plausibly be explained as incompetence. Thinking like yours is what creates conflicts.

    Anyone who's been around IT for a while (not you, it seems) clearly recognizes these flaws for what they are. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I.e. No tin foil hat required.

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by torsionbar28 View Post
      Lolwhat? How is an attack on a ship that occurred in 1967, relevant to a discussion about security vulnerabilities in IT equipment?
      Stop playing strawman now. It's as relevant as mentioning Russia and Iran in this thread.

      Don't like intel CPU's? Feel free to switch to Longsoon or KaiXian or Dhyana. Or just use AMD, as these new SPOILER vulnerabilities don't apply. Never attribute to malice, what can plausibly be explained as incompetence. Thinking like yours is what creates conflicts.

      Anyone who's been around IT for a while (not you, it seems) clearly recognizes these flaws for what they are. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I.e. No tin foil hat required.
      Yep, they're result of insecurity by design which makes me wonder if there are so many idiots in CPU business or perhaps, these vulnerabilities were introduced intentionally.

      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by Wojcian View Post

        Yep, they're result of insecurity by design which makes me wonder if there are so many idiots in CPU business or perhaps, these vulnerabilities were introduced intentionally.
        I think it likely that profits drove CPU design rather than security. If the engineers say the preferred CPU design is also slow, I much doubt the executives would go for that. But if the engineers design something fast, but possibly insecure, I think the executives would go for it. So long as profits continue to come in.

        Interestingly, stock analysts continue to rate Intel as a "buy" despite disturbing patterns in their security practices. To customers, the product and its utility are the whole reason for spending money. But to executives, the product is merely a means to an end, and the end is only about making more money.

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by wswartzendruber View Post
          Interestingly, stock analysts continue to rate Intel as a "buy" despite disturbing patterns in their security practices.
          You mean not satisfying paranoid wackos. And the analysts don't care of paranoia, rightfully.

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by Weasel View Post
            You mean not satisfying paranoid wackos. And the analysts don't care of paranoia, rightfully.
            So, following your logic every serious operating system is made by paranoid wackos. Simply wonderful, genius.

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by Wojcian View Post
              So, following your logic every serious operating system is made by paranoid wackos. Simply wonderful, genius.
              It's just for PR. Or they do it for *drumroll* servers.

              Show me a single normal (non-server) user hit by one of these speculative execution exploits and the extent of the damage (many disable the protections for performance btw).

              I'm waiting.

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by Weasel View Post
                It's just for PR. Or they do it for *drumroll* servers.

                Show me a single normal (non-server) user hit by one of these speculative execution exploits and the extent of the damage (many disable the protections for performance btw).

                I'm waiting.
                By that logic, guns shouldn't have safeties and cars don't need seatbelts.

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by wswartzendruber View Post
                  By that logic, guns shouldn't have safeties and cars don't need seatbelts.
                  Except I can easily show you car accidents and gun accidents do happen and thus it invalidates the entire point. Try harder.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X