Re: blindness and overclocking
44, this is not just my saying that it is difficult to exploit these vulnerabilities. Intel themselves mentioned this, to digital trends that exploiting these outside of a lab environment was very complex, and not likely to be done.
Here is the article, and relevent quotes
https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing … -security/
quote1:When we asked Intel whether this practice would continue moving forward, it suggested that it wouldn’t mandate security patches for its partners, but that, “As always, Intel encourages all computer users to make sure they keep their systems up-to-date, as it’s one of the best ways to stay protected.”
Getting anyone to do so, whether it’s a smartphone or a laptop, is something that many companies struggle with, even if it is one of the most important ways to keep your devices safe from hackers and general malware. So the fact that these particular patches can cause performance dips makes it an even harder sell. Especially since there is very little evidence to suggest any speculative execution attacks have actually taken place in the wild.
quote2: In our discussion with Intel on the matter, it again downplayed the severity of these exploit paths, stating that “Exploiting speculative execution side channel vulnerabilities outside of a laboratory environment is extremely complex relative to other methods that attackers have at their disposal.”
It also pointed to a Virginia Tech study from 2019 that highlighted how an average of just 5.5 percent of discovered vulnerabilities were actively utilized in the wild.
So this isn't just me, but Intel as well. And this in't any way similar to cancer iether. There is no attack known actually using any of these, so so the massive performance penalty is no way justified. Taking the performance penalty isn't an option. Those cloud centers might have taken like 10% performance hits, but the hit on older hardware is dramatically higher, as I said, 70% and up performance hits are not minor in any sense of the word, and are bad enough to make systems inoperable. It coule even be higher than 70% on first gen/third gen processors, which I don't have. I had to actually disable the fixes on family computers because the computer was not practical to use, took 10 minutes to boot etc. these are unacceptable hits to take. Its insane too how alot of tech sites just encourage people to purchase a new computer to deal with the slowdowns as well. Computers that would likely work just fine many more years. The worse thing is more and more microcode updates get released, destroying performance even more.
As for the patches, I would be interested in uninstalling these, however, alot of the fixes are bundled into cumulative updates, which it isn't possible to uninstall without uninstalling the whole cumulative update. The microcode patches themselves could be uninstalled but that likely wouldn't revert the microcode installed in the bios.
-- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
