Major Intel CPU vulnerability
-
@storageninja said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
@dustinb3403 said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
It takes 3 seconds to look at his stock trades and see the pattern, and another 5 minutes to see that he filed paperwork for this plan back in 2015
At the end of Q4 he sells his awards. Nothing to see here fake news from the internet mob who's too lazy to learn basic finance skills.
Perhaps he knew of this in 2015... relevant to question that at least.
-
@tim_g said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
@storageninja said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
@dustinb3403 said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
It takes 3 seconds to look at his stock trades and see the pattern, and another 5 minutes to see that he filed paperwork for this plan back in 2015
At the end of Q4 he sells his awards. Nothing to see here fake news from the internet mob who's too lazy to learn basic finance skills.
Perhaps he knew of this in 2015... relevant to question that at least.
That's certainly possible and scary.
-
I really don't know what to believe at quick glance. This article is saying it is across all CPUs, including AMD and ARM, not just Intel:
-
@tim_g said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
I really don't know what to believe at quick glance. This article is saying it is across all CPUs, including AMD and ARM, not just Intel:
"The computer world is facing a ‘Meltdown’ after security vulnerabilities have been exposed on processors made by Intel, AMD, ARM and others. According to reports, Intel chips with the x86-64 hardware have a serious design flaw, which makes billions of PCs vulnerable to cyber-attacks."
Fishy, because...
x86-64 is a uniquely Intel extension, AMD doesn't use it.
ARM doesn't make this archtiecture chip in any way shape or form, they only design chips of a completely different type.How does the Intel flaw flow into anyone else that isn't connected to them?
-
"Intel’s Meltdown vulnerability can compromise entire server networks, not just individual computers. "
WTF does that even mean?
-
Intel says that there is no flaw, it's intentional.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
@tim_g said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
I really don't know what to believe at quick glance. This article is saying it is across all CPUs, including AMD and ARM, not just Intel:
"The computer world is facing a ‘Meltdown’ after security vulnerabilities have been exposed on processors made by Intel, AMD, ARM and others. According to reports, Intel chips with the x86-64 hardware have a serious design flaw, which makes billions of PCs vulnerable to cyber-attacks."
Fishy, because...
x86-64 is a uniquely Intel extension, AMD doesn't use it.
ARM doesn't make this archtiecture chip in any way shape or form, they only design chips of a completely different type.How does the Intel flaw flow into anyone else that isn't connected to them?
Yeah that doesn't make sense if the AMD architecture is completely different.
I'm looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64
To me it's looking like AMD64 is AMD's version of x86_64. So, perhaps it duplicated the same vulnerability... but maybe not.
I wish there was more info on this.
-
@tim_g said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
To me it's looking like AMD64 is AMD's version of x86_64. So, perhaps it duplicated the same vulnerability... but maybe not.
Other way around. AMD64 is the architecture. x86_64 is an Intel marketing name for compatibility with AMD64 extended on top of the IA32 (aka x86) architecture. AMD64 came first and is never x86_64, AMD64 is what you compile to. x86_64 is a scam name used by Intel to try to pretend that they weren't using an AMD designed chip after the disaster of Itaniam (aka IA64.) X86_64 was a reference to AMD64 calls on top of Intel's Pentium IV 32bit chip. Later they called their own implementation of AMD64, x64, because they refused to acknowledge that they were the copy cats so closely following their huge "Genuine Intel" campaign claiming that clones were inferior.
For the 64bit era, Intel has been the clone, and it is "Genuine AMD".
-
@scottalanmiller said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
@tim_g said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
To me it's looking like AMD64 is AMD's version of x86_64. So, perhaps it duplicated the same vulnerability... but maybe not.
Other way around. AMD64 is the architecture. x86_64 is an Intel marketing name for compatibility with AMD64 extended on top of the IA32 (aka x86) architecture. AMD64 came first and is never x86_64, AMD64 is what you compile to. x86_64 is a scam name used by Intel to try to pretend that they weren't using an AMD designed chip after the disaster of Itaniam (aka IA64.) X86_64 was a reference to AMD64 calls on top of Intel's Pentium IV 32bit chip. Later they called their own implementation of AMD64, x64, because they refused to acknowledge that they were the copy cats so closely following their huge "Genuine Intel" campaign claiming that clones were inferior.
For the 64bit era, Intel has been the clone, and it is "Genuine AMD".
Ahh, i see.
Then either:
- Intel did a bad job of duplicating the AMD64 architecture, inventing the vulnerability in the process.
or
- AMD64 had the vulnerability to begin with, and Intel replicated it.
-
It's VERY fishy that this flaw is mentioned over and over again as being Intel and a flaw and unique to the Intel-only platform of x86_64, but then claimed to be on AMD and ARM chips... which just happened to be names that the public knows well. But never, ever mentioned on IA64, Power, or Sparc64. Things don't add up. If it is a flaw in Intel's downstream implementation, how is it affecting others? Why is it only big consumer-known products affected and not other products from the same and other vendors? If other architectures are affected, why is only Intel's architecture named?
-
@tim_g said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
@scottalanmiller said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
@tim_g said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
To me it's looking like AMD64 is AMD's version of x86_64. So, perhaps it duplicated the same vulnerability... but maybe not.
Other way around. AMD64 is the architecture. x86_64 is an Intel marketing name for compatibility with AMD64 extended on top of the IA32 (aka x86) architecture. AMD64 came first and is never x86_64, AMD64 is what you compile to. x86_64 is a scam name used by Intel to try to pretend that they weren't using an AMD designed chip after the disaster of Itaniam (aka IA64.) X86_64 was a reference to AMD64 calls on top of Intel's Pentium IV 32bit chip. Later they called their own implementation of AMD64, x64, because they refused to acknowledge that they were the copy cats so closely following their huge "Genuine Intel" campaign claiming that clones were inferior.
For the 64bit era, Intel has been the clone, and it is "Genuine AMD".
Ahh, i see.
Then either:
- Intel did a bad job of duplicating the AMD64 architecture, inventing the vulnerability in the process.
or
- AMD64 had the vulnerability to begin with, and Intel replicated it.
Right, but if it was #2, it is being reported wrong and the flaw is in AMD64, not x86_64. But neither case would explain how ARM is involved.
-
Yeah, I guess we need to wait for more info... things just aren't making sense.
My guess is the media is reporting this wrong... or Intel is leaking incorrect information.
-
@tim_g said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
Yeah, I guess we need to wait for more info... things just aren't making sense.
My guess is the media is reporting this wrong... or Intel is leaking incorrect information.
Given that Intel and Google both reported only after getting busted for having information about vulnerabilities that they had not released, the one thing we know is that neither can be trusted. Google and Intel got caught with their pants down and seem to be claiming anything to lessen the blow to their integrity.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
@tim_g said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
Yeah, I guess we need to wait for more info... things just aren't making sense.
My guess is the media is reporting this wrong... or Intel is leaking incorrect information.
Given that Intel and Google both reported only after getting busted for having information about vulnerabilities that they had not released, the one thing we know is that neither can be trusted. Google and Intel got caught with their pants down and seem to be claiming anything to lessen the blow to their integrity.
Well yeah they both have so much to lose, especially Google.
Google has a big reputation for being security-focused. Now that's all shot to pieces imo.
-
@tim_g said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
@scottalanmiller said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
@tim_g said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
Yeah, I guess we need to wait for more info... things just aren't making sense.
My guess is the media is reporting this wrong... or Intel is leaking incorrect information.
Given that Intel and Google both reported only after getting busted for having information about vulnerabilities that they had not released, the one thing we know is that neither can be trusted. Google and Intel got caught with their pants down and seem to be claiming anything to lessen the blow to their integrity.
Well yeah they both have so much to lose, especially Google.
Google has a big reputation for being security-focused. Now that's all shot to pieces imo.
They are focused on THEIR security, just not ours.
-
There are two different vulns. One is specifically Intel and one is all processors. The Intel vulnerability is much worse and requires firmware updates and OS patching. The other flaw can be fixed with just OS patches
-
Driving at the moment I'll share more later
-
Meltdown is Intel specific. Speculative execution affects all processors
-
Can someone TLDR this mess for me?
If stuff isn't getting BIOS updates to "fix" this is it worth keeping the hardware?
Anyone going full out replacements? With what?
-
@irj said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
Meltdown is Intel specific. Speculative execution affects all processors
But they aren't listing all processors, anywhere. Only three very specific ones. Not even all Intels, just some.
