Intel CPUs Reportedly Vulnerable To New "SPOILER" Speculative Attack

[Wojcian]

It almost seems to me like a anti-Intel propaganda campaign, even with an un-patched system there is little chance for any real damage to the average user.

Do you mean it's anti-intel propaganda, because intel CPU's are disasters when comes to security? Are you able to backup your claims? Do you really think Linux, BSD, Windows blow their performance up, because of some anti-intel propaganda? It sounds exactly opposite: like intel's propaganda. I own an intel CPU which is now 30% slower and it seems the latest vulnerability may be impossible to fix.

[CochainComplex]

This is getting ridiculous...soon our PCs will be as fast as a 386.

no only your intel PC

[CochainComplex]

...the fx8350 seems to be able to compete with the intels of its generation after all

[andyprough]

Two highlights from the article:

" even from sandboxed environments like JavaScript " and " Rowhammer attack with normal user’s privilege "

What's worrying, is the mentality of the industry which intentionally sacrificed security for performance, has passed to end users.

Just read the comments of this article: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...meltdown&num=1

So, you think people in general should give up significant performance for proof-of-concept exploits that have never been seen in the wild? Actually that viewpoint seems a bit paranoid.

My main concern is, I don't trust any academics who spell "exploits" as "ex-ploits". What is an "ex-ploit"? Is that like a former sploit? Similar to an ex-girlfriend?

[xiando]

To be reluctantly fair, most users don't want to pay for safety/security so it's not entirely Intel's fault. It's as much the fault of their customers as Intel's (including myself on some ocassions). Intel has largely delivered what their customers wanted. Cheap computing with a very strong backwards compatibility ethic.

You do have a valid point though it is somewhat flawed. Today you can make an informed decision whether to buy a Intel or AMD CPU based on the number of known security issues with Intel but that wasn't the case before these issues became known. It's like buying an electric car thinking it's fine for your needs but when winter comes you discover that it won't start in sub-zero temperatures. It's unlikely that you'd have bought it if you knew beforehand. Those willing to pay extra for security would probably have gone another route if they knew. It's not like Intel didn't sit on the Meltdown issue for half a year pretending all was well while they off-loaded their defective-by-design CPUs onto unsuspecting customers.

I guess the FSB's right, the good old typewriter is the real security choice.

[Spooktra]

Do you mean it's anti-intel propaganda, because intel CPU's are disasters when comes to security? Are you able to backup your claims? Do you really think Linux, BSD, Windows blow their performance up, because of some anti-intel propaganda? It sounds exactly opposite: like intel's propaganda. I own an intel CPU which is now 30% slower and it seems the latest vulnerability may be impossible to fix.

Talk about intentionally misunderstanding what I wrote; I have no doubt that the "mitigations" effects performance, what I don't believe is that without them any harm in a real world setting can actually take place and I defy anyone to show me an example where any of these "exploits" caused any real world harm.

[CochainComplex]

Is there a list of which CPUs are affected by this?
And if future CPUs have it fixed?

in the paper you can find some tested architectures. but i couldn't find a comprehensive list. If I have understood it correctly from core upwards to kabylake?

[MadCatX]

Talk about intentionally misunderstanding what I wrote; I have no doubt that the "mitigations" effects performance, what I don't believe is that without them any harm in a real world setting can actually take place and I defy anyone to show me an example where any of these "exploits" caused any real world harm.

Did it occur to you that:
- The nature of these security flaws make it very difficult to detect if a system has been compromised, so finding a solid evidence of real world attack is pretty hard.
- These flaws received a lot of attention from both hardware and OS developers who went out of their way to fix as much as they could. I suppose that this demotivates a potential attackers from writing real world exploits when their targets are likely to be patched. If anything, the fact that we have not heard of Meltdown/Spectre being actively used is an indication that the threat was taken care of really well.

[alex79]

Ohh for fcuke sake, can we have a class action against Intel going? This is getting out of hand, purposely making chips vulnerable to hacks is surely a valid reason?

[schmidtbag]

Although I'm sure Ryzen will be fine, I'd like to get some confirmation that Ryzen is safe. According to the article, they only tested Bulldozer.

Ohh for fcuke sake, can we have a class action against Intel going? This is getting out of hand, purposely making chips vulnerable to hacks is surely a valid reason?

I'm pretty sure it wasn't deliberate, and there's no way to prove that either. Intel is making efforts to protect consumers.

If Intel is to be sued, it's for misleading performance.