Intel Impacted by new SWAPGS Speculative Execution Attack

[WYP]

AMD believes that their processors are 'not vulnerable'.



Read more about Intel CPUs being impacted by a speculative execution attack called SWAPGS.

 

[ander01se]

RIP Intel? I assume the next gen CPUs will still have the spectre issues because of the long production process?

 

[ImprovizoR]

Another one?


Sure, why not...

 

[Dark NighT]

I really want to ditch my x99 now..

 

[WillSK]

Let's be honest, AMD have just hired a full time team of Chinese hackers to keep finding back doors and exploits on Intel chips. It's all part of their master plan *insert sarcasm here

 

[dazbobaby]

RISC is looking better every day.

 

[grassman]

They didn't give them a six months notice before publishing? Dodgy and amateur professionalism. TBF Intel do work hand and hand with DARPA so thats most likely where these exploits are coming from.. :rollinglaugh:

 

[NeverBackDown]

They didn't give them a six months notice before publishing? Dodgy and amateur professionalism. TBF Intel do work hand and hand with DARPA so thats most likely where these exploits are coming from.. :rollinglaugh:

They worked with intel for over a year. They had enough time.

 

[grec]

RISC is looking better every day.

Pure RISC/CISC is long dead for general compute, ARMv8 is a huge instruction set with lots of specialised add-ons that even includes base instructions like FJCVTZS now (Floating-point Javascript Convert to Signed fixed-point, rounding toward Zero), it's gone a long way from its RISC origins.

 

[cooperman]

I think intel has been doing a 'lake' of cocaine.

 

[Warchild]

Let's be honest, AMD have just hired a full time team of Chinese hackers to keep finding back doors and exploits on Intel chips. It's all part of their master plan *insert sarcasm here

As sarcastic as it sounds. You know that is actually a valid and logical thing to do, in order to impact a rival technological competitor!

Many things can be found when you reverse engineer a product.

 

[WillSK]

As sarcastic as it sounds. You know that is actually a valid and logical thing to do, in order to impact a rival technological competitor!

Many things can be found when you reverse engineer a product.

Very true.

I guess there's nothing illegal about looking for flaws in your competitor's product and the positive PR it creates for AMD is a big win.

 

[Greenback]

Very true.

I guess there's nothing illegal about looking for flaws in your competitor's product and the positive PR it creates for AMD is a big win.

It could blow back on them if it ever got out it was them finding these things and putting them out in public space for others to abuse

 

[Warchild]

It could blow back on them if it ever got out it was them finding these things and putting them out in public space for others to abuse

I believe there is a clause that allows AMD to be as public as they want, if Intel have not resolved the issues after XX days from the point of being notified discreetly.

 

[Dawelio]

I believe there is a clause that allows AMD to be as public as they want, if Intel have not resolved the issues after XX days from the point of being notified discreetly.

They could always claim that they weren’t notified though and how would someone prove otherwise really? It’s words against words.

 

[Warchild]

They could always claim that they weren’t notified though and how would someone prove otherwise really? It’s words against words.

Emails, snail mail, skype calls, server logs, mail exchange, etc theres evidence everywhere. Whatsapp and messenger are a little more difficult, but when things are done officially there is no escape. You cannot deceive anyone.

I could prove every phonecall, timestamp, call duration, sms ("sms content if i wanted to break GDPR"), MMS, if just one of the phone numbers belonged to my network.

 

[grec]

Grace periods are entirely at the revealing parties discretion, many consider it unethical to release the info before a patch is available but there's nothing against it legally, which is why Google and Microsoft so often have these tit for tat arguments when they find each others bugs(Happens a lot on the web side esp now Edge is moving to Chrmoium) about whether Google's hard 90 day grace period(To push companies to react to medium threats quickly) is ethical compared to Microsoft's "Release public info after patch approach"(Which some argue doesn't incentivise a company to push a patch quickly). Basically the public vs non public disclosure thing is an active ethical debate and both are generally seen as quite valid approaches as long as you at least give them 14 days.

If it were AMD finding these security patches they'd be doing it publicly though. There's absolutely nothing for them to worry about on their side and it would show a high level of competence at routing these issues out. It's not though, they're all revealed by large, respected cybersecurity firms who are giving Intel huge grace periods including in this case and will be getting paid megabucks from Intel as a bounty for the bug.

 

[WYP]

TBH, AMD doesn't have the money to waste on trying to find flaws with Intel CPUs directly. That engineering time would be better spent on their own products.

AMD has the advantage of having little market share. Nobody is looking at AMD's products in the same way they are looking at Intel's. Intel vulnerabilities affect everyone, AMD vulnerabilities impact almost nobody by comparison.

AMD doesn't need to spend money looking for Intel vulnerabilities because everyone is already focusing on Intel. Security researchers are already doing a great job making Intel look bad, so AMD doesn't need to work on that. They are better working on their own stuff.

 

[Dawelio]

TBH, AMD doesn't have the money to waste on trying to find flaws with Intel CPUs directly. That engineering time would be better spent on their own products.

AMD has the advantage of having little market share. Nobody is looking at AMD's products in the same way they are looking at Intel's. Intel vulnerabilities affect everyone, AMD vulnerabilities impact almost nobody by comparison.

AMD doesn't need to spend money looking for Intel vulnerabilities because everyone is already focusing on Intel. Security researchers are already doing a great job making Intel look bad, so AMD doesn't need to work on that. They are better working on their own stuff.

Well said!