https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/0 ... sign_flaw/
AMD/Unix (OpenBSD) hereA fundamental design flaw in Intel's processor chips has forced a significant redesign of the Linux and Windows kernels to defang the chip-level security bug.
AMD/Unix (OpenBSD) hereA fundamental design flaw in Intel's processor chips has forced a significant redesign of the Linux and Windows kernels to defang the chip-level security bug.
Code: Select all
Application Version: 1.0.0.152
Scan date: 2018-01-03 16:08:00 GMT
*** Host Computer Information ***
Name: puppypc225xx
Manufacturer: Dell Inc.
Model: Studio XPS 1640
Processor Name: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU P8600 @ 2.40GHz
OS Version: (3.14.79)
*** Risk Assessment ***
Detection Error: This system may be vulnerable,
either the Intel(R) MEI/TXEI driver is not installed
(available from your system manufacturer)
or the system manufacturer does not permit access
to the ME/TXE from the host driver.
For more information refer to the INTEL-SA-00086 Detection Tool Guide or the
Intel Security Advisory Intel-SA-00086 at the following link:
https://www.intel.com/sa-00086-support
I think that is something else? The one for this thread seems to be called SA-00088:fabrice_035 wrote:bad new!
I try with intel tool detection vulnerability
Code: Select all
Application Version: 1.0.0.152 Scan date: 2018-01-03 16:08:00 GMT *** Host Computer Information *** Name: puppypc225xx Manufacturer: Dell Inc. Model: Studio XPS 1640 Processor Name: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU P8600 @ 2.40GHz OS Version: (3.14.79) *** Risk Assessment *** Detection Error: This system may be vulnerable, either the Intel(R) MEI/TXEI driver is not installed (available from your system manufacturer) or the system manufacturer does not permit access to the ME/TXE from the host driver. For more information refer to the INTEL-SA-00086 Detection Tool Guide or the Intel Security Advisory Intel-SA-00086 at the following link: https://www.intel.com/sa-00086-support
https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/27150?v=t
This is because the CPU is probably not the main bottleneck on your machine. I saw something that compared the growth rate of cpu performance to ram speeds and ram is falling behind in terms of More's law. I suspect this applies to non-volaitle storage as well.Keisha wrote:
CPU CryptoHash shows a 12% performance loss.
FPU Raytracing shows a 30% performance loss.
All other benchmarks, essentially the same. Subjectively, the machine doesn't feel any slower.
Could this translate to a significant advantage of AMD over Intel in product sales going forward?
The above benchmarks were run with Fedora's default Powersave governor.s243a wrote:Another random thought, devices are getting smaller and smaller and have less surface area to disapate heat. This slows down CPUs. If this slows down the CPU enough then maybe it will run as slow as the rest of the components.
Some think very soon a script (run in your web browser) will be able to perform an exploit.s243a wrote: The attack relies on running the attackers code on your computer. If you don't run the attackers code then the exploit won't work. Because puppy minimizes the amount of software that one is istalled by default the chance of a fresh puppy having the exploit in installed software is very low.