4 ms·
Essentially looks like Intel compromised (whether intentional or not is a different point) the design to get the speed boost that gave them the lead over AMD fo
by artellectual 9y ago
Essentially looks like Intel compromised (whether intentional or not is a different point) the design to get the speed boost that gave them the lead over AMD for the past decade. Will be interesting to see how all this plays out.
- jchw 9y agoOther than leaking timing information though, is there any reason why this kind of speculative execution can't be secure? Apparently we're going to find out more in the coming weeks, but it feels strongly like Intel has made a number of mistakes leading up to this.
- bhouston 9y agoWhat chip exactly introduced this feature? Core 2 architecture? Nehalem?
- artellectual 9y ago> It is understood the bug is present in modern Intel processors produced in the past decade. Source: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_fl...
- dx034 9y agoArstechnica says it could be any processor since 1995. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/whats-behind-the-intel-design-flaw-forcing-numerous-patches/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/whats-behind-the-int...
- rootlocus 9y ago> Essentially looks like Intel compromised (whether intentional or not is a different point) If it wasn't intentional, then it wasn't a compromise. So it's not a different point.
- CRConrad 9y ago"To compromise" means "to weaken" or "to endanger", not "to make _a_ compromise". To make a compromise is an intentional act, but you can compromise (e.g. the security of) something by sloppiness. So yes, it is a different point. (Yeah, I know, don't blame me. English _is_ weird.)