Intel chip vulnerability

Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Dark Black replied

4 January 2018, 14:46
The Register's response to Intel's press release...

We translated Intel's crap attempt to spin its way out of CPU security bug PR nightmare
Leave a comment:
d000hg replied

4 January 2018, 13:48
I'm sure Apple will be offering me a nice new MacMini then, and claiming the cost from Intel...
Leave a comment:
DaveB replied

4 January 2018, 13:24
CERT have published their recommended solution.

https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/584653

Solution
Replace CPU hardware
The underlying vulnerability is primarily caused by CPU architecture design choices. Fully removing the vulnerability requires replacing vulnerable CPU hardware.

Translation : Software patches may fix it but only until someone breaks the software.
Leave a comment:
NotAllThere replied

4 January 2018, 12:02
Intel's CEO sold a load of his stock last month. I wonder why.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/...-of-stock.aspx
Leave a comment:
Hobosapien replied

4 January 2018, 10:13
Originally posted by _V_ View Post

Another reason then to choose a AMD ThreadRipper over an i9 cpu.

https://www.extremetech.com/computin...intels-core-i9

AMD also affected to a lesser degree, by the 'spectre' bug.

Not the kind of James Bond product placement they were expecting.
Leave a comment:
BR14 replied

3 January 2018, 22:26
Originally posted by woohoo View Post

I was looking for an excuse to upgrade my aging 3 year old supercomputer.

a Z9 ???
Leave a comment:
woohoo replied

3 January 2018, 21:21
Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post

Interesting read here https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/0...u_design_flaw/

I was looking for an excuse to upgrade my aging 3 year old supercomputer.
Leave a comment:
BR14 replied

3 January 2018, 20:30
oh, dear, but i must say this made me chuckle
'Forcefully Unmap Complete Kernel With Interrupt Trampolines'
well, the acronym.

ah, well, it's all back to proper computers people!
Z/OS for ever!
Leave a comment:
DaveB replied

3 January 2018, 18:33
The bit thats really going to bite is the performance hit of the fix. Up to 30% slowdown depending on the application.

Thats going to cost a lot of people a lot of money, especially the ones who've been sweating their kit or stingy on the original specs.
Leave a comment:
_V_ replied

3 January 2018, 16:44
Another reason then to choose a AMD ThreadRipper over an i9 cpu.

https://www.extremetech.com/computin...intels-core-i9
Leave a comment:
NotAllThere started a topic Intel chip vulnerability

3 January 2018, 16:36
Intel chip vulnerability

Interesting read here https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/0...u_design_flaw/
Tags: None