at bottom :-
On 06/01/2018, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-01-05 at 17:32 +, shirish शिरीष wrote:
>> The only good thing is that it doesn't increase any remote attack
>> vector than before but it does mean that people should be more
>> circumspect about any software they download at
On 5 January 2018 at 23:20, Vikas Tara wrote:
> The retpoline approach suggested yesterday looks like it provides a
> better approach wrt performance so may be worth waiting:
> https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-Kernel-Retpoline-Patches
Ahh yes, that's due to the linker pat
On 5 January 2018 at 23:02, shirish शिरीष wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> While I don't want to be the paranoid one here, the situation here
> seems to demand it.
>
> 3 Days back the Register broke the story of a chip vulnerability -
>
> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/
>
> W
On 05/01/18 17:40, shirish शिरीष wrote:
> addition at bottom :-
>
> On 05/01/2018, shirish शिरीष wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> While I don't want to be the paranoid one here, the situation here
>> seems to demand it.
>>
>> 3 Days back the Register broke the story of a chip vulnerability -
>>
>> https:
addition at bottom :-
On 05/01/2018, shirish शिरीष wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> While I don't want to be the paranoid one here, the situation here
> seems to demand it.
>
> 3 Days back the Register broke the story of a chip vulnerability -
>
> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_f
Dear all,
While I don't want to be the paranoid one here, the situation here
seems to demand it.
3 Days back the Register broke the story of a chip vulnerability -
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/
While it seeked to paint only Intel, it is now learnt that the issu
