4 ms·

I don't think you understand the bug here. 1) https://spectreattack.com/ https://spectreattack.com/: "Spectre tricks other applications into accessing arbitrar

I don't think you understand the bug here. 1) https://spectreattack.com/ https://spectreattack.com/: "Spectre tricks other applications into accessing arbitrary locations in their memory. " Spectre does not let you execute code in another guest 2) Spectre is not javascript specific. I am not sure why you think it is, beyond the fact a PoC was written in js

Godel_unicode 9y ago
I don't think you understand my point. You should reread my post, especially the first sentence. It's first and alone for a reason; not sharing hardware is an effective mitigation against vulnerabilities in shared hardware. Obviously it's not just a js bug, there are other PoCs in other languages. I never said anything about executing code in another guest, not sure where you got that from.
- TickleSteve 9y ago
  Spectre is exploitable from processes, not just containers.... containers are equivalent to processes from it's point-of-view as the kernel is shared. So... you may be able to go native to avoid having neighbours, but this does not prevent other processes exploiting your process. To do that you need to prevent any downloadable code from running. This of course is possible and is the entire reason why the ARM document explains that most embedded systems are not affected due to the fact that they will not download and execute code (of any form).
- cthalupa 9y ago
  >Pretty hard to have a neighbor vm execute Spectre on your same physical server if you have dedicated hardware. You have no reason to care about a neighbor VM executing Spectre on the same physical server, since they're only hurting themselves, not you. >Add in that Spectre specifically is a js bug so in order to be vulnerable your server would need to execute untrusted JavaScript and I think we can assume the threat surface of this specific bug is smaller outside the cloud... "Spectre specifically is a js bug"

Godel_unicode 9y ago

I don't think you understand my point. You should reread my post, especially the first sentence. It's first and alone for a reason; not sharing hardware is an effective mitigation against vulnerabilities in shared hardware. Obviously it's not just a js bug, there are other PoCs in other languages. I never said anything about executing code in another guest, not sure where you got that from.

TickleSteve 9y ago
Spectre is exploitable from processes, not just containers.... containers are equivalent to processes from it's point-of-view as the kernel is shared. So... you may be able to go native to avoid having neighbours, but this does not prevent other processes exploiting your process. To do that you need to prevent any downloadable code from running. This of course is possible and is the entire reason why the ARM document explains that most embedded systems are not affected due to the fact that they will not download and execute code (of any form).
cthalupa 9y ago
>Pretty hard to have a neighbor vm execute Spectre on your same physical server if you have dedicated hardware. You have no reason to care about a neighbor VM executing Spectre on the same physical server, since they're only hurting themselves, not you. >Add in that Spectre specifically is a js bug so in order to be vulnerable your server would need to execute untrusted JavaScript and I think we can assume the threat surface of this specific bug is smaller outside the cloud... "Spectre specifically is a js bug"