More Intel leaks.. this one is not good though

[Red Hardware]

4 minutes ago, sazrocks said:

Benchmarks have already been run. On linux performance losses range from 0-30%. It depends on how many syscalls the program makes.

OOOHH

30% is soo much to lose especially when you are talking about a data center with a lot servers or a supercomputer 

It's so bad ; Not only for normal consumers but also for big companies and data centers . They clearly can't risk to avoid the update and losing performance will definitely make problems for them 

[Red Hardware]

4 minutes ago, sazrocks said:

Benchmarks have already been run. On linux performance losses range from 0-30%. It depends on how many syscalls the program makes.

Can you give me link to some articles ?

[sazrocks]

Actually it seems the patch to check for AMD processors has been accepted:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git/commit/?h=x86/pti&id=694d99d40972f12e59a3696effee8a376b79d7c8

This means that it is likely to be included in 4.14.12 and 4.15rc7.

7 minutes ago, Red Hardware said:

Can you give me link to some articles ?

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-415-x86pti&num=2

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=x86-PTI-Initial-Gaming-Tests

[ItsMitch]

Intel has finally responded in a statement found on their website:https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-responds-to-security-research-findings/

 

Intel and other technology companies have been made aware of new security research describing software analysis methods that, when used for malicious purposes, have the potential to improperly gather sensitive data from computing devices that are operating as designed. Intel believes these exploits do not have the potential to corrupt, modify or delete data.

 

Recent reports that these exploits are caused by a “bug” or a “flaw” and are unique to Intel products are incorrect. Based on the analysis to date, many types of computing devices — with many different vendors’ processors and operating systems — are susceptible to these exploits.

 

Intel is committed to the product and customer security and is working closely with many other technology companies, including AMD, ARM Holdings, and several operating system vendors, to develop an industry-wide approach to resolve this issue promptly and constructively. Intel has begun providing software and firmware updates to mitigate these exploits. Contrary to some reports, any performance impacts are workload-dependent, and, for the average computer user, should not be significant and will be mitigated over time.

 

Intel is committed to the industry best practice of responsible disclosure of potential security issues, which is why Intel and other vendors had planned to disclose this issue next week when more software and firmware updates will be available. However, Intel is making this statement today because of the current inaccurate media reports.

Check with your operating system vendor or system manufacturer and apply any available updates as soon as they are available. Following good security practices that protect against malware, in general, will also help protect against possible exploitation until updates can be applied.

 

Intel believes its products are the most secure in the world and that, with the support of its partners, the current solutions to this issue provide the best possible security for its customers.

 

-----------

 

They seem to be very angry that the media went public, almost as if we shouldn't be made aware of their fuck ups

[sazrocks]

Quote

Intel believes its products are the most secure in the world and that, with the support of its partners, the current solutions to this issue provide the best possible security for its customers.

LOL

Quote

Recent reports that these exploits are caused by a “bug” or a “flaw” and are unique to Intel products are incorrect. Based on the analysis to date, many types of computing devices — with many different vendors’ processors and operating systems — are susceptible to these exploits.

I'd like to see exactly who "many different vendors" are. AMD has already claimed it is not vulnerable; were they lying/incorrect? Or could that phrase be referring to ARM/VIA?

[DoctorWho1975]

Good security practices... don't use Intel.

 

And it sounds far better when Baghdad Bob says it.

 

 

[ItsMitch]

2 minutes ago, sazrocks said:

see exactly who "many other vendors" are. AMD has already claimed it is not vulnerable; were they lying/incorrect? Or could that phrase be referring to ARM/VIA

Maybe they're trying to reference Linux and MacOS?

[just_dave]

If Ryzen's performance gets hindered, i am going to call Kim to send an ICBM to Santa Clara on the intel stupid-ass cowturd douchedonkeys who can't properly make ducking x86_64 arch.

 

[sazrocks]

2 minutes ago, SC2Mitch said:

Maybe they're trying to reference Linux and MacOS?

I think that would be more the second part of that statement.

Quote

Recent reports that these exploits are caused by a “bug” or a “flaw” and are unique to Intel products are incorrect. Based on the analysis to date, many types of computing devices — with many different vendors’ processors and operating systems — are susceptible to these exploits.

The part about processors is what has me worried/confused.

[ItsMitch]

4 minutes ago, sazrocks said:

I think that would be more the second part of that statement.

The part about processors is what has me worried/confused.

Would be nice if Intel actually tells us what CPU's are actually affected, like real nice. 

[TheCherryKing]

I'm tired of this bullsh!t! This finally pushed me over to the other side, AMD. It's time form me to get something far more EPYC with far less security flaws!

[sazrocks]

1 minute ago, SC2Mitch said:

Would be nice if Intel actually tells us what CPU's are actually affected, like real nice. 

Hopefully they will when patches actually roll out.

[Tech Wizard]

 

[Bit_Guardian]

3 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

I'm tired of this bullsh!t! This finally pushed me over to the other side, AMD. It's time form me to get something far more EPYC with far less security flaws!

Please see the numerous critical security bugs filed against ARM TrustZone, which is embedded into any Ryzen or Epyc processors.

[sazrocks]

Just now, Bit_Guardian said:

Please see the numerous critical security bugs filed against ARM TrustZone, which is embedded into any Ryzen or Epyc processors.

I mean Intel's ME is pretty bad too, so you can't use that as a point to raise one above the other.

[TheCherryKing]

5 minutes ago, Bit_Guardian said:

Please see the numerous critical security bugs filed against ARM TrustZone, which is embedded into any Ryzen or Epyc processors.

They're not as bad as Intel. AMD is the lesser of the two evils.

[Bit_Guardian]

36 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

They're not as bad as Intel. AMD is the lesser of the two evils.

Yes they are, literally just as bad. The reporting is just quieter.

[TheCherryKing]

Just now, Bit_Guardian said:

Yes they are, literally just as bad. The reporting is just quieter.

That's true. It does seem that nearly everybody bashes Intel but doesn't mention problems with AMD. So what's the solution? Use high-end workstation hardware from 2005?

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

That's true. It does seem that nearly everybody bashes Intel but doesn't mention problems with AMD. So what's the solution? Use high-end workstation hardware from 2005?

yes

 

 

 

1 hour ago, dave_k said:

If Ryzen's performance gets hindered, i am going to call Kim to send an ICBM to Santa Clara on the intel stupid-ass cowturd douchedonkeys who can't properly make ducking x86_64 arch.

 

 

Feel free to design and build your own line of cpus in the same market and show us just easy it is. 

[Zodiark1593]

11 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

That's true. It does seem that nearly everybody bashes Intel but doesn't mention problems with AMD. So what's the solution? Use high-end workstation hardware from 2005?

Time for ARM to complete it's world conquest by snapping up the high end market?

[Mira Yurizaki]

To everyone going "I'm going AMD because it's more secure than Intel!"

 

Zero publicly known exploits does not make a system any more secure than one with X amount of publicly known exploits. AMD is just as much of a black box as Intel is. This is like saying "Windows has 10 known security flaws while Linux has 20. Therefore, Windows is more secure."

[TheCherryKing]

1 minute ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Time for ARM to complete it's world conquest by snapping up the high end market?

ARM won't be a viable replacement for x86 desktops and workstations. VIA Technologies will be re-entering the market shortly. Perhaps they can make higher end CPUs. 

[thorhammerz]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

To everyone going "I'm going AMD because it's more secure than Intel!"

 

Zero known exploits does not make a system any more secure than one with X amount of known exploits. AMD is just as much of a black box as Intel is. This is like saying "Windows has 10 known security flaws while Linux has 20. Therefore, Windows is more secure."

Shhh, no need to interfere with the sheep's stampede .

[Zodiark1593]

2 minutes ago, TheCherryKing said:

ARM won't be a viable replacement for x86 desktops and workstations. VIA Technologies will be re-entering the market shortly. Perhaps they can make higher end CPUs. 

It was a mild jest on my part. Only thibg ARM could potentially replace are the Atoms.

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, Zodiark1593 said:

It was a mild jest on my part. Only thibg ARM could potentially replace are the Atoms.

Everyone says that, but I don't think anyone has managed to test an ARM chip running at desktop speeds in similar software environments to prove one way or the other.