Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
I don't have a problem with the researcher's message. They are clear on how this vulnerability works and what steps are required to instigate an attack. They don't have an attack which can be staged from within a browser and they certainly don't provide evidence that all browsers are vulnerable simply from browsing certain websites. The researchers have managed to demonstrate a proof of concept in JavaScript but this only worked reliably when run from a specially prepared shell outside of the browser and when using a timer method which has been removed from modern browsers. Reported the facts is fine, making stuff up is not.
Sure, it's all about understanding the risk and threat. If you are working with customer data in an environment where an MDS attack could be staged, then you should absolutely mitigate appropriately. The beauty of an MDS attack is in being able to cross user, container and virtual machine security boundaries. On a multi-tenant system this can done without the victim being aware or compliant. On a typical home system there will only be a single user session, so an MDS type attack makes no sense, there is no co-tenant or boundary to cross. To launch an MDS attack on that home computer a hacker would first have to get their malicious code running within your user session through another attack vector; most typically spam. But it would make no sense for the payload to then restrict itself to sampling a few bytes of data through a side-channel attack. It would be be much more effective and practical to run a key-logger, ransomware, miner, etc.
Lol. Don't cry. I had a Intel system also for ages before upgrading. To my knowledge I was not attacked either. Does not mean I should bury my head in the sand and assume nothing bad will ever happen.
Hahaha well said.
Think about your own straw man, I won't waste time on it.
Intel don't Own X86_64, the _64 part is AMD and Intel couldn't function if AMD withdrew their licence for it, just as AMD couldn't function if Intel withdrew their X86 licence to AMD, its a symbiotic relationship and its why they are in a cross licensing agreement, they would kill eachother off if they weren't.
Intel don't Own X86_64, the _64 part is AMD and Intel couldn't function if AMD withdrew their licence for it, just as AMD couldn't function if Intel withdrew their X86 licence to AMD, its a symbiotic relationship and its why they are in a cross licensing agreement, they would kill eachother off if they weren't.
Look, the same people already tested AMD for these flaws, they don't have them, just because they don't mention AMD in these doesn't mean they aint testing them, they are simply naming the CPU with issues, and not those that don't, The assumption that because Intel has issues must mean AMD do too and with AMD's name missing from it it must then be a conspiracy, i think that's ludicrous.
No offence take or given
I am fine thanks
