• Competitor rules

    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.

Intel bug incoming? Meltdown and Spectre exploits

Don
Joined
19 May 2012
Posts
17,196
Location
Spalding, Lincolnshire
Another vulnerability - this time in 10th/11th/12th gen Intel chips


As with all of these vulnerabilities though - they are relatively overstated, and certainly on a home user level are of little concern.
 
Caporegime
Joined
22 Nov 2005
Posts
45,288
Another vulnerability - this time in 10th/11th/12th gen Intel chips
You need Root or Admin access for that one anyway.

it's a non story
If all these vulnerability were not present and no patches wonder how much performance wouldn't be lost.
Most of them are over hyped nonsense like the latest claims.
if you had root or admin anyway then why would you bother to do this so called "exploit"



It's like me claiming theres an exploit where I can rob your house, all it takes is for you to let me in, massive glaring exploit that effects all of your houses
 
Man of Honour
Joined
25 Oct 2002
Posts
31,745
Location
Hampshire
I think it's interesting to consider what's preferable for a manufacturer, releasing a high performance CPU that gets you a lot of sales initially and then having to deal with the fallout from a vulnerability getting exposed somewhere down the line, or addressing it prior to release and having a less competitive product. Take Alder Lake for example, Intel got a lot of kudos for it's performance relative to prior generations and indeed AMD. Imagine they had some vulnerability that needed a 10% performance hit to mitigate. Does intel want that addressed pre launch or would they rather ship the product, grab market share and then worry about the vulnerability later?
 
Man of Honour
Joined
22 Jun 2006
Posts
11,675
I think it's interesting to consider what's preferable for a manufacturer, releasing a high performance CPU that gets you a lot of sales initially and then having to deal with the fallout from a vulnerability getting exposed somewhere down the line, or addressing it prior to release and having a less competitive product. Take Alder Lake for example, Intel got a lot of kudos for it's performance relative to prior generations and indeed AMD. Imagine they had some vulnerability that needed a 10% performance hit to mitigate. Does intel want that addressed pre launch or would they rather ship the product, grab market share and then worry about the vulnerability later?

Woah, I thought I was cynical :cry:

The lack of benchmarks and awareness of how the mitigations impact performance would definitely suggest the former is preferable. Day one reviews seem to set the tone forever, which I guess is part of why reviewers are always so keen to have them up, to capture that initial interest.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Posts
12,621
The latest I read about affects 10th gen or newer and requires the system to be already owned like most of the others. So another performance hit coming for a moderate at worst vulnerability.
 
Associate
Joined
31 Dec 2010
Posts
2,444
Location
Sussex
Well, Intel's server products are way behind and wasn't the recent earnings call thing hinting at them having found extra vulnerabilities in Sapphire Rapids (which is roughly the server of Alder Lake)?

So it might be exactly Intel's strategy: release and Alder Lake to consumers without extensive security testing, but fix any security issues for the server release.

The interesting thing would be to know whether Intel suspected any security vulnerabilities before they released to consumers.
 
Caporegime
Joined
22 Nov 2005
Posts
45,288
Well, Intel's server products are way behind and wasn't the recent earnings call thing hinting at them having found extra vulnerabilities in Sapphire Rapids (which is roughly the server of Alder Lake)?

So it might be exactly Intel's strategy: release and Alder Lake to consumers without extensive security testing, but fix any security issues for the server release.

The interesting thing would be to know whether Intel suspected any security vulnerabilities before they released to consumers.
wasnt that yet again another rumour from who knows where? also AMD
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/new-vulnerability-affects-all-amd-zen-cpus sounds like the same exploit
 
Back
Top Bottom