I'm not sure how one can compare Y2K with Meltdown and Spectre. We know
there was a point when Y2K would become a problem. That was 1/1/2000...
Meltdown and Spectre are different. Millions of computers and maybe
even more devices and embedded systems are affected today. We have no
time to
The big difference is that was mostly resolved via software. Intel issue is
much harder.
On Jan 5, 2018 11:48 PM, "Steve Litt" wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2018 11:27:38 -0700
> Eric Oyen wrote:
>
> > oh boy. This sounds like another Y2K problem, only this one has some
> > reality about it and real
On Fri, 05 Jan 2018 11:27:38 -0700
Eric Oyen wrote:
> oh boy. This sounds like another Y2K problem, only this one has some
> reality about it and real consequences.
Y2K was completely real, and would have had real consequences if our
society hadn't taken three years to fix most of it. We were fo
well, that was a known factor well ahead of time. This situation is different.
Intel KNEW there might be a problem with this method of memory processing. They
just didn't know how big a problem it could turn out to be. And all of these
chips are in everything from routers, to servers to switches
I think my next car will be some old iron without any of the modern
electronic
On 2018-01-05 11:40, Stephen Partington wrote:
> I still do not want my car to be the massively online thing that car makers
> seem to think is the bes thing ever. cause they have no clue what security
> is.
>
So, Eric — You don’t think Y2K had consequences?
:)
It just happened to be a raft of stupid bugs that the industry dealt with in
time.
I was coding around Y2K bugs as early as 1979, as were lots of other people,
just matter of factly planning on Y2K, but some of the older and more primitive
stu
Spectre also affected AMD. Nobody is safe.
Regards,
Jason
From: Stephen Partington
Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 11:40 AM
To: Main PLUG discussion list
Subject: Re: Major Intel Memory Vulnerability
I still do not want my car to be the massively online thing
I still do not want my car to be the massively online thing that car
makers seem to think is the bes thing ever. cause they have no clue what
security is.
Leave my car dumb, gime a bluetooth interface to my phone and leave me be...
And get off my lawn :-P
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 10:47 AM, der.
oh boy. This sounds like another Y2K problem, only this one has some reality
about it and real consequences.
-eric
from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, Truth or Consequences Dept.
On Jan 5, 2018, at 9:39 AM, techli...@phpcoderusa.com wrote:
>
> I think they have a moral obligation
Am 05. Jan, 2018 schwätzte Stephen Partington so:
It is certainly a deciding factor in my desire to move to AMD on my CPU
rollout.
Trying to imagine a car salesperson knowing which CPUs are in a particular
model and utterfly failing.
Luckily IoT generally has so many holes that we don't need
>From: techli...@phpcoderusa.com
>I think they have a moral obligation to destroy all effected chips that are in
>the pipeline. Dell and others need to stop sales and not continue selling
>until the CPU is fixed.
Not happening. Nor is Intel issuing a recall.
https://www.cnet.com/news/meltdown-s
It is certainly a deciding factor in my desire to move to AMD on my CPU
rollout.
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 9:39 AM, wrote:
>
> I think they have a moral obligation to destroy all effected chips that
> are in the pipeline. Dell and others need to stop sales and not continue
> selling until the CPU
I think they have a moral obligation to destroy all effected chips that
are in the pipeline. Dell and others need to stop sales and not
continue selling until the CPU is fixed.
This is much bigger than we know. Almost every computer is effected.
The intermittent fix is software. What keeps so
On Thu Jan 04 18, der.hans wrote:
Am 03. Jan, 2018 schwätzte Matthew Crews so:
moin moin,
good writeup on memory management and how this is an issue from before the
bug details were released and a follow up article from the same guy about
the bugs.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/whats
Am 03. Jan, 2018 schwätzte Matthew Crews so:
moin moin,
good writeup on memory management and how this is an issue from before the
bug details were released and a follow up article from the same guy about
the bugs.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/whats-behind-the-intel-design-flaw-forci
Came across this Google blog article where they claim AMD is affected as
well.
https://security.googleblog.com/
On 2018-01-03 16:09, der.hans wrote:
Am 02. Jan, 2018 schwätzte Matthew Crews so:
moin moin,
the bugs now have names and logos, let the marketing begin.
http://www.zdnet.com/a
I would be more concerned IF the next gen CPU has this fixed. All's I know is
that if Intel wants to fix the very next gen, they will need to scrap a lot of
silicon that has already been finished.
Sent from [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com), Swiss-based encrypted email.
Original Mes
Am 02. Jan, 2018 schwätzte Matthew Crews so:
moin moin,
the bugs now have names and logos, let the marketing begin.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/security-flaws-affect-every-intel-chip-since-1995-arm-processors-vulnerable/
###
Am I affected by the bug?
Most certainly, yes.
###
Rumors thus far
Phoronix posted some synthetic benchmarks with the patch applied. The main
applications that seem affected are things like database software, while things
like code compiling and video encoding are barely affected.
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-415-x86pti&num=2
Sent
I read the performance hit for Intel chips will be %35 or so after the fix.
> On Jan 2, 2018, at 7:49 PM, Eric Oyen wrote:
>
> so, does this mean that the UEFI might get patched first? OR, does the OS
> ecology have to do so first? Lastly, how much of a performance hit will this
> represent?
so, does this mean that the UEFI might get patched first? OR, does the OS
ecology have to do so first? Lastly, how much of a performance hit will this
represent?
-eric
from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, the "oh look! yet another
bug!" Dept.
On Jan 2, 2018, at 3:39 PM, Matthew Cr
: Major Intel Memory Vulnerability
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/
In a nutshell, it is a major security flaw in Intel hardware dating back a
decade that is requiring a complete kernel rewrite for every major OS (Linux,
Windows, Mac, etc) in order to patch out. It
Interestingly the last line of the article says "A spokesperson for
Intel was not available for comment."
On 2018-01-02 15:39, Matthew Crews wrote:
> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/
>
> In a nutshell, it is a major security flaw in Intel hardware dating back a
Am 02. Jan, 2018 schwätzte Matthew Crews so:
moin moin,
thanks! I was just looking to see if there was an update on the story :).
http://pythonsweetness.tumblr.com/post/169166980422/the-mysterious-case-of-the-linux-page-table
ciao,
der.hans
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/
In a nutshell, it is a major security flaw in Intel hardware dating back a
decade that is requiring a complete kernel rewrite for every major OS (Linux,
Windows, Mac, etc) in order to patch out. It cannot be patched out with a CPU
25 matches
Mail list logo