Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Initial Benchmarks Of The Spectre "SWAPGS" Mitigation Performance Impact

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

  • mumar1
    replied
    We proudly present:
    The speculative execution vulnerability of the week

    Leave a comment:


  • rene
    replied
    Originally posted by DoMiNeLa10 View Post

    Every chip since the Pentium Pro is vulnerable to spectre.
    Atom? ,-)

    "…without any instruction reordering, speculative execution, or register renaming. The [] microarchitecture therefore represents a partial revival of the principles used in earlier Intel designs such as P5 and the i486 …" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suCj4eulTJg
    Last edited by rene; 07 August 2019, 12:42 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rene
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

    Both. Some we have, some we don't, some have been fixed, some won't be fixed.

    It's dumb to run unmitigated outside of benchmarks.
    It depends, if you have a high performance science cluster where only local people can run their massive parallel load, maybe they do not need that extra security. Similar to servers without remove shell logins or remote code execution I would assume, too, ..?

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    I'm not sure if you're joking or not. Westmere shares many of the same vulnerabilities; the difference is Intel has no intention on updating the microcode (which means you are actually less safe).
    Both. Some we have, some we don't, some have been fixed, some won't be fixed.

    It's dumb to run unmitigated outside of benchmarks.

    Leave a comment:


  • schmidtbag
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
    I'm glad I have 2010 Intels.

    My shit's so old it's damn-near invulnerable and almost safe to use 100% unmitigated. Westmere Xeons FTW
    I'm not sure if you're joking or not. Westmere shares many of the same vulnerabilities; the difference is Intel has no intention on updating the microcode (which means you are actually less safe).

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by DoMiNeLa10 View Post

    Every chip since the Pentium Pro is vulnerable to spectre.
    That's why I said "damn-near" and "almost"

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

    I'm glad I have 2010 Intels.

    My shit's so old it's damn-near invulnerable and almost safe to use 100% unmitigated. Westmere Xeons FTW
    Every chip since the Pentium Pro is vulnerable to spectre.

    Leave a comment:


  • bug77
    replied
    Originally posted by boxie View Post
    I do wonder how many more of these things exist
    Considering we're looking a new attack vector that has existed for years, but nobody thought it could be exploited as such, quite a lot, I expect.
    The only saving grace is they're damn near impossible to exploit by themselves.

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by boxie View Post
    I do wonder how many more of these things exist
    42
    (5 characters )

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by Azrael5 View Post
    Another vulnerability called SwapGs discovered by Bitdefender programmers affect Intel CPUs since 2012. Intel is a VIRUS.
    I'm glad I have 2010 Intels.

    My shit's so old it's damn-near invulnerable and almost safe to use 100% unmitigated. Westmere Xeons FTW

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X