Windows Client Guidance against speculative execution vulnerabilities

Cliff S said:

I would guess: because this is something that Intel, their board partners(the OEMs), and the myriad operating system developers, HAVE to get right the first time around.

Yup huge rep damage if this is not handled properly... and we know how cosy Intel and MS are... right?

BTW check the share drop in Intel vs the rise in AMD on Jan 3rd. It's correcting now tho'

tracit99 said:

In Windows 17046 I start Powershell as Administrator. I check policyexecution status. Then I run Install-Module SpeculationControl. I get this:

Attachment 171030

What am I doing wrong?

EDIT: Works okay in 16299.192.

Glad it worked for you bud... still can't figure the prob .. really weird!

tracit99 said:

In Windows 17046 I start Powershell as Administrator. I check policyexecution status. Then I run Install-Module SpeculationControl. I get this:

Attachment 171030

What am I doing wrong?

EDIT: Works okay in 16299.192.

I'm running admin as PS C:\Users\cliff> where as you are running as system32

tracit99 said:

Switched to PS C:\Users\rmt. I still get the same results.

Have you already perchance installed it, and need only to run the information command?

system32 is where Admin resides... seems PS does not recocognise the module to install?

Superfly said:

system32 is where Admin resides... seems PS does not recocognise the module to install?

But I am running it as admin, but then again with powershell I never know what I'm doing, just copy & paste a command
No! Really!

Cliff S said:

That board(and CPU are definitely EOL

Ya think? And yet it is breezing through IP builds like no tomorrow.

Of course, that EOL hardware is also backed by 12 GB of triple channel DDR3, dual SSDs for \System and \Users, and an nVidia GTX 970 for main graphics and GTX 560 Ti 448 Core dedicated to PhysX. So it is doesn't feel nearly as ancient as it actually is....

Josey Wales said:

If this is so serious and Microsoft and Intel were informed in June or July..Why so long to even attempt to fix this?

Ummm, didn't they have a 'product launch right after that? which , for all intents and purposes, still contains the bug....

Cliff S said:

I would guess: because this is something that Intel, their board partners(the OEMs), and the myriad operating system developers, HAVE to get right the first time around.

Which is my argument as to why they pushed back on 10nm builds yet again.

Superfly said:

Yup huge rep damage if this is not handled properly... and we know how cosy Intel and MS are... right?

BTW check the share drop in Intel vs the rise in AMD on Jan 3rd. It's correcting now tho'

Oh Intel has already badly damaged its public face with its naysaying posts about how there is nothing really wrong - they followed up their initial blog on 3 Jan about how nothing is bad a day later with actual specifics, but in other posts are basically saying "OK, if we're going down we're taking everyone else, including AMD and ARM, with us!"

Cliff S said:

I'm running admin as PS C:\Users\cliff> where as you are running as system32

Superfly said:

system32 is where Admin resides... seems PS does not recocognise the module to install?

fdegrove said:

Hi,



Not when you were taking that screenshot, @Cliff S

But it should work either way unless you have scripting disabled.

Cheers,

Yeah, I ran mine directly as admin, and my screenshot shows the entirety of steps performed from start to finish.

fdegrove said:

Hi,



Not when you were taking that screenshot, @Cliff S

But it should work either way unless you have scripting disabled.

Cheers,

Make a bet?
right click run as: