Hello Joey,
Wednesday, January 3, 2018, 4:56:50 AM, you wrote:
> No way around it. It's hardware FAIL, and ignoring it isn't an option since
> it's apparently a huge hole.
Looks like there IS way around it and it was "silently" committed to Linux
http://pythonsweetness.tumblr.com/post/169166980
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
> Hello Joey,
>
> Wednesday, January 3, 2018, 4:56:50 AM, you wrote:
>
> > No way around it. It's hardware FAIL, and ignoring it isn't an option
> since
> > it's apparently a huge hole.
> Looks like there IS way around it and it was "silent
On 1/2/2018 5:52 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> I am guessing this will impact FreeBSD as well ?
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/
>
Keep in mind that this issue is still under Embargo, so no official
statement from FreeBSD will likely be made before it is lifted. I d
In message <477ab39d-286d-d9a2-d31e-fd5f7f167...@sentex.net>,
Mike Tancsa wrote:
>I am guessing this will impact FreeBSD as well ?
>
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/
Swell. Just swell.
Why couldn't this have been announced the week -before- I bought an Intel
pr
On 01/03/2018 14:48, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
> In message <477ab39d-286d-d9a2-d31e-fd5f7f167...@sentex.net>,
> Mike Tancsa wrote:
>
>> I am guessing this will impact FreeBSD as well ?
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/
>
> Swell. Just swell.
>
> Why cou
With respect to
https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-responds-to-security-research-findings/
The FreeBSD Security Team recently learned of the details of these
issues that affect certain CPUs. Details could not be discussed
publicly, but mitigation work is in progress.
Work is ongoing to develop
Mike Tancsa wrote:
> I am guessing this will impact FreeBSD as well ?
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/
More URLs:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/4/709
[patch 00/60] x86/kpti: Kernel Page Table Isolation (was KAISER)
https://gruss.cc/files/kaiser.pdf Fu
> On Jan 3, 2018, at 11:59 AM, Eric van Gyzen wrote:
>
> On 01/03/2018 14:48, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>>
>> In message <477ab39d-286d-d9a2-d31e-fd5f7f167...@sentex.net>,
>> Mike Tancsa wrote:
>>
>>> I am guessing this will impact FreeBSD as well ?
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/20
On Tue, Jan 02, 2018 at 08:52:27PM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> I am guessing this will impact FreeBSD as well ?
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/
https://meltdownattack.com/
--
Shawn Webb
Cofounder and Security Engineer
HardenedBSD
Tor-ified Signal:+1 443-5
In message <02563ce4-437c-ab96-54bb-a8b591900...@freebsd.org>,
Eric van Gyzen wrote:
>Wait until Tuesday before you explode. Intel are now saying that it's
>not a "bug" in Intel CPUs.
Right. "That's not a bug! That's a feature!"
I say again: Shshhh!
Just within the last three
On Wednesday, January 03, 2018 02:59:35 PM Eric van Gyzen wrote:
>
> Wait until Tuesday before you explode. Intel are now saying that it's
> not a "bug" in Intel CPUs.
>
> https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-responds-to-security-research-findings
> /
Bogus tripe. They're spreading FUD.
--
On Thursday, January 4, 2018, Joey Kelly wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 03, 2018 02:59:35 PM Eric van Gyzen wrote:
>
> >
> > Wait until Tuesday before you explode. Intel are now saying that it's
> > not a "bug" in Intel CPUs.
> >
> > https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-responds-to-
> security-
On Thursday, January 04, 2018 02:44:45 AM Oliver Pinter wrote:
> On Thursday, January 4, 2018, Joey Kelly wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 03, 2018 02:59:35 PM Eric van Gyzen wrote:
> > > Wait until Tuesday before you explode. Intel are now saying that it's
> > > not a "bug" in Intel CPUs.
> > >
It's a huge fail. One can apparently use speculative execution to create memory
leaks. Some Intel processors without speculative execution - such as the
Atom CPUs (including the embedded ones) - won't be affected,
whereas the bigger,
fancier i3, i5, i7, and Xeon processors will. It's unclear on
"David M. Syzdek" writes:
> They did not say it is *NOT* a bug, just that it is not a bug unique
> to Intel. [...] Additionally, they indirectly imply that both AMD and
> ARM chips are affected by the same bug, however this is, at least in
> AMD’s case, appears to be directly refuted [...] by AMD
On 01/03/2018 21:35, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> "David M. Syzdek" writes:
>> They did not say it is *NOT* a bug, just that it is not a bug unique
>> to Intel. [...] Additionally, they indirectly imply that both AMD and
>> ARM chips are affected by the same bug, however this is, at least in
>> A
In message <2347560.AJVtGcUuTT@elisha.atlnet>,
Joey Kelly wrote:
>...
>No, I mean their lame excuses, dances around the truth, claiming many other
>platforms AND OPERATING SYSTEMS do it too. 'Tain't so. This is hardware, INTEL
>hardware, and not an OS problem...
While it is clearly true, eve
In message <0bb7ffc6-fa51-98db-9dc1-1bd49e1c7...@metricspace.net>,
Eric McCorkle wrote:
>Given enough skill, resources, and motivation, it's likely that an
>attacker could craft a javascript-based version of the attack, then
>every javascript website (aka all of them) is a potential attack vect
Hi,
On Wed, 03 Jan 2018 16:29:12 -0800
"Ronald F. Guilmette" wrote:
> In message <02563ce4-437c-ab96-54bb-a8b591900...@freebsd.org>,
> Eric van Gyzen wrote:
>
> Obviously, the enemy is what it has always been... complexity. All
I disagree. The problem started when Intel published the handbo
19 matches
Mail list logo
