New
#110
Superfly you could be correct but I doubt we will ever know that as a fact.
Those kinds of things are kept very secret.
Jack
Superfly you could be correct but I doubt we will ever know that as a fact.
Those kinds of things are kept very secret.
Jack
I answer to a lot of different monikers, but John will do nicely, thanks :)
And while it does require computing power for the speculative approach, the exploits actually take some ofthe speculation out by (as per usual) forming a bad call that breaks the chain but doesn't clear out the fill registers that have the sensitive data - which can then be dumped and analyzed. That is the real reason the exploit is dangerous - not for end users, but for cloud operators and those running lots of mission-critical VMs.
Look at the bigger picture.
1) Intel was made aware of the Meltdown exploit back in June. at that time their stock price was running around $35 USD, on average. Then, there was a large hike (to the tune of 30%) in stock prices, starting in Late September, which took the stock prices over $45 USD. The CEO of Intel filed a 10b5-1 plan with the SEC on Oct 30, after the stock started rising, and then dumped a very large amount of stocks, minimizing the number he owns to the minimum required number for him as CEO of Intel.
From Intel CEO sold millions in stock after company was informed of vulnerability, before disclosure - MarketWatch
Note the date - Oct 30, a full 5 months after Intel was made aware of the exploit.Krzanich acquired about 644,000 shares that vested at prices that varied from $12.99 to $24.17, and sold them for a weighted average price of $44.05. He also sold almost 245,000 shares he already owned at a weighted average price of $44.56, bringing his total down to exactly the 250,000-share threshold that as Intel CEO he must own as of May, as Motley Fool previously reported.
In total, the stock sales brought in more than $39 million, according to the SEC filing, though that total does not include the amount Krzanich paid for his stock options.
2) The processors involved are much more far ranging than just computers and servers - what about networked medical devices in hospitals (devices that are notorious for being behind in updated software because the OEMs are and have always been lackadaisical about pushing updates as well as hospital administrators who are just as lackadaisical about applying updates because they simply do not have time / staff to do so). What about other devices, from IoT to connected vehicles to mission critical infrastructure at industries like powergrids?
It is not over-hyped at all. The Media is making a circus out of all this, yes, but the concerns here are real.
That is the good thing - "Oh, 7.25% performance hit? Well, you can simply by this new processor line that is 10% faster, and you win!"
Class action lawsuits tend to open things like this up - and there are several already being filed.
Here come the lawsuits! Intel sued for processor vulnerabilities - Neowin
Thank you John for this site.
Intel CEO sold millions in stock after company was informed of vulnerability, before disclosure - MarketWatch
You would think the SEC would be looking into such a thing.
Jack
What would happen if speculative execution was disabled completely on an Intel Core processor? Could the processor still function?
Well, after reading all those articles I'm finding relief, because I will have no performance impact if I decide to install the patch...
My years of being loyal to AMD payed off, finally!
Still I feel bad for Intel users, I'm sure there must be a way to fix this without performance loss, they deserve it after all the money they invested in an Intel CPU...
By the other hand, what does AV software manufacturers have to say in this matter? I don't want to install a patch that will cause me a BSOD just because the kernel integration of the AV suck...