Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly

[Topcat]

Re: Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly

apparently Supermicro has released an updater for their "X8" series (LGA1366) stuff, which includes Nehalem & Westmere processors. I've ran it on a couple boards (X8DAL and X8DTi-F).

http://www.supermicro.com/support/bi...1.0.0_X8DP.zip

[stj]

Re: Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly

I usually don't worry about exploits, unless there's a port configured to be accessible via the WAN,

well there kind-of is,
that's what the ME problem is about.
do you really want an ARM-CORE microcontroller on your motherboard with acess to your ram, drives and NIC's??
maybe also your camera/mic stuff on a laptop?

[RJARRRPCGP]

Re: Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly

I usually don't worry about exploits, unless there's a port configured to be accessible via the WAN, and folks who merely hop on the internet, get exploited. (Like Blaster and Sasser in the mid-2000s)

[stj]

Re: Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly

lol
"mossad inside" or should it be "cia inside"?
maybe "nwo inside" ??

[Stefan Payne]

Re: Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly

....and it looks like there's a nother load of shit hitting the fan on Monday...

Right now mostly German Sources are reporting about it...
https://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/Excl...s-4040648.html

[Behemot]

Re: Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly

Vista before SP1, sucks! It lags! And I recommend Vista with SP2 pre-integrated, to avoid having a lot of Windows errors!

I fail to see the new info here.

[RJARRRPCGP]

Re: Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly

When AMD released something that came close, they charged a fortune for it

Sounds just like the last old-school FXes, the FX 60 and the FX 62, IIRC.

[RJARRRPCGP]

Re: Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly

M$ stated XP and Vista won't be getting the updates, nor will any of the systems based on that (PoS for example) because of kernel architecture and BS. Running XP or Vista on newer HW gives me NO benefit whatsoever, the focus is on old HW (Pentium D-C2Q) which 1st comes with XP/Vista CoAs, and 2nd may actually run (much) better with these systems.

But what I mean is, most of the most-used apps like web browsers got updates to mitigate it in the application itself. Besides that, it has been stated that the older the CPU architecture, the more complicated it actually is to gain anything with speculative execution as, well, they do not speculate so much, don't have all the instructions (we are already talking hundrends of new instructions between Wolfdale and say Ivy Bridge) and are generally slower in these things so it is quite challenging to bypass the system. Am I right here?

Cause what I also mean, I got tens of rigs with Vista (Business mostly) CoAs. If we ignore the broken update application crap, the systems will run happily most of current SW still, and actually faster than with 7. Yep. it is ironic, but because of 7 getting the patches, Vista will likely be faster from now on. So I can install original Vista (and activate via phone at the worst) with some (how great?) a risc, or pirated 7 without the risc. I do have chinese CoAs for 7 Pro too, but most of the folk wont be willing to pay extra 25 bucks for it.

Vista before SP1, sucks! It lags! And I recommend Vista with SP2 pre-integrated, to avoid having a lot of Windows errors!

[Behemot]

Re: Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly

You neglected to mention that they were completely irelevant in the mobile market during this time. Intel 965 and Socket M/P was all the rage and amd had absolutely nothing to offer... This went on for a couple of years.

Heck, even now, are there any Ryzen laptops anywhere to be found?

If it wasn't for Pentium M, Intel would suck so badly. AMD got the same attitude - lets take desktop CPU and pick-up the better pieces and call them mobile. So you got Socket 754 laptops, AM2 laptops etc. It was not sooner than with K10 when they finally made sepparate silicon especially for laptops. But X2 Phenom at 3 GHz and 35 W, what can you complain about? Besides the failing northbridges…and graphics…

[stj]

Re: Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly

not bad for a bunch of land-stealing kazarian(russian) gangsters with constant funding from an insolvent victim-state.

[mockingbird]

Re: Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly

the development team in Israel

...not bad for a puny little Jew country, only 60 years re-established, eh?

[mariushm]

Re: Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly

You neglected to mention that they were completely irelevant in the mobile market during this time. Intel 965 and Socket M/P was all the rage and amd had absolutely nothing to offer... This went on for a couple of years.

Heck, even now, are there any Ryzen laptops anywhere to be found?

They're working on Ryzen mobile, but it's a niche (along with servers) where Intel pumps a lot of marketing money and they won't give that up easily. It's more difficult than desktop and HEDT markets.

And btw... Core 2 Duo was nothing revolutionary... the development team in Israel basically saw that P4/Netburst sucks and simply went back and modified Pentium 3 architecture... great innovation. See https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-tha...I-architecture

As for Core 2 times and before that and AMD not being that active...

You're forgetting about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_...o_Devices,_Inc.

https://www.extremetech.com/computin...es-against-amd


FACTBOX: Key facts on EU Commission's ruling on Intel
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-e...54C3II20090513

* Intel gave wholly or partially hidden rebates to computer manufacturers on condition that they bought all, or almost all, their x86 CPUs processors from Intel.

* It also made direct payments to a major retailer on condition it stocked only computers with its x86 CPUs. This effectively prevented customers - and ultimately consumers - from choosing alternative products.

* Intel paid computer manufacturers to halt or delay the launch of specific products containing competitors’ x86 CPUs and to limit the sales channels available to these products.

* Computer manufacturers affected includes Acer, Dell, HP, Lenovo and NEC. The retailer concerned is Media Saturn Holding, owner of the MediaMarkt chain.

[..]

CONDITIONAL REBATES AND PAYMENTS

Intel awarded major computer manufacturers rebates if they bought all or almost all of their supplies, at least in certain defined segments, from Intel:

* Intel gave rebates to computer manufacturer A from December 2002 to December 2005 conditional on this manufacturer purchasing exclusively Intel CPUs.

* Intel gave rebates to computer manufacturer B from November 2002 to May 2005 conditional on this manufacturer purchasing no less than 95 percent of its CPU needs for its business desktop computers from Intel (the remaining 5 percent that computer manufacturer B could purchase from rival chip maker AMD was then subject to further restrictive conditions).

* Intel gave rebates to computer manufacturer C from October 2002 to November 2005 conditional on this manufacturer purchasing no less than 80 percent of its CPU needs for its desktop and notebook computers from Intel.

* Intel gave rebates to computer manufacturer D in 2007 conditional on this manufacturer purchasing its CPU needs for its notebook computers exclusively from Intel.

PAYMENTS TO PREVENT SALES OF SPECIFIC RIVAL PRODUCTS


* For the 5 percent of computer manufacturer B’s business that was not subject to the conditional rebate, Intel made further payments to computer manufacturer B provided that this manufacturer:

- sold AMD-based business desktops only to small and medium enterprises.

- sold AMD-based business desktops only via direct distribution channels (as opposed to through distributors)

- postponed the launch of its first AMD-based business desktop in Europe by 6 months.

* Intel made payments to computer manufacturer E provided that this manufacturer postponed the launch of an AMD-based notebook from September 2003 to January 2004.

* Before the conditional rebate to computer manufacturer D, Intel made payments to this manufacturer provided that it postponed the launch of AMD-based notebooks from September 2006 to the end of 2006.

If I remember correctly, they still haven't paid all that money to AMD... but I think they forced Intel to at least make some cross licensing deals..

[mockingbird]

Re: Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly

AMD was just transfering the K8 from DDR to DDR2 and pretty much in the middle of acquiring ATi when Intel threw the Core 2 on the market.

You neglected to mention that they were completely irelevant in the mobile market during this time. Intel 965 and Socket M/P was all the rage and amd had absolutely nothing to offer... This went on for a couple of years.

Heck, even now, are there any Ryzen laptops anywhere to be found?

[Behemot]

Re: Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly

AMD was just transfering the K8 from DDR to DDR2 and pretty much in the middle of acquiring ATi when Intel threw the Core 2 on the market. They at least pushed the K8 to high clocks with still reasonable TDPs, you won't make a new platform overnight. Not even over year. Their chipsets and integrated graphics were still much better so some of the EE versions of their CPUs were quite popular for HTPCs.

Also they did not loose so much server market as they could when they stayed with ECC Reg DIMM unlike Intel with that FB-DIMM thing.

The K10 was also not as good as it should have been though it still provided better competition than K8. And than VIA for example. That company had some nice opportunities and screwed everything. They are not the only ones who screwed, sure, Transmeta, anybody?

[mockingbird]

Re: Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly

One could think that AMD didn't use the Intel Way of Prefetching because they knew that it was a bad idea and insecure.

As for Intel:
They could Nuke the US and people would still buy them and defend their doing/products..

I've always disliked Intel, but for the past ten years, I'm really trying to understand what AMD has actually done for me? They're virtuous because they're the so-called competition to evil? Oh please...

With regard to prefetching... Let's look back at when Core2 was released... Which products did AMD put forward to compete with Intel? Zero. They waited two years until they half-heartedly released Kuma, and by that time, no one wanted to do anything with their products.

So in Intel's estimation, they had products (albeit insecure) on the market which outperformed the competition by a wide margin. When AMD released something that came close, they charged a fortune for it in order to feed their ever-increasing corporate bloat, their drivers at the time were still a mess, so what's to like about them?

I give them a chance and buy two Ryzens, and they've suddenly leaped from being too old to 'too new'. These are the hallmarks of a disorganized, disjointed company.

But then again, as I communicated to Toms Hardware way back in the day, Core2 was way ahead of anything AMD could offer at that time, because AMD had a German engineering team, and Core2 was "...something a German mind could never conceive" (my words).

[Stefan Payne]

Re: Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly

They're not as badly affected as Intel, but they're affected.
The CPUs are not vulnerable to all the issues Intel cpus are vulnerable to due to different design choices, and on those that affect them, the results are less severe.

One could think that AMD didn't use the Intel Way of Prefetching because they knew that it was a bad idea and insecure.

As for Intel:
They could Nuke the US and people would still buy them and defend their doing/products..

And for those other exploits reported by CTS Labs Research...

...are bullshit because you can do the same shit on every product that connects to the PC that has a FLASH ROM on it and can be programmed from the OS.

Graphics cards, NICs, Harddrives and so on.


The Thing is: If you already have Admin Access to the computer, its fucked anyway. That you can flash the Motherboard BIOS doesn't make it that much worse.
Especially since you have to have a Firmware that is specific to the Board on that Machine. A general Exploit seems unreasonable to me...

[Behemot]

Re: Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly

I've searched for everything, nothing works for Vista any longer. The problem is outdated WU version, but there is no newer app version for Vista as it is EoL'd. And no stand-alone patches will work as the WUA service always looks for missing updates first so it knows whether it could actually install the package. So you have to wait for it to index the list anyway which could now take 5-7 days, that's my estimate anyway.

Only choice I see is to put most of the updates to the SP2 image and let them install automatically during the very system installation.

[Hondaman]

Re: Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly

Close to 3 days was still not enough for the thing to find updates.

Last autumn I had the same problem with Win7. There are a few key patches that may bring your looooooong wait down to mere minutes. I googled it, downloaded a couple of updates, then started the Windows Update applet, and minutes later I had all the updates in a nice list, ready for my review.

Are there key patches that reduce the wait with Vista like they do with Seven?

[Behemot]

Re: Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly

XP is still supported via PSOReady 2009 updates until April 2019.

Also:

1) You can still run pretty much run any new Intel CPU on XP. AHCI drivers are available even up to the latest generation (Don't quote me on that). So if you have a BIOS with the updated microcode, the risk is zero.
2) I'm pretty certain MS has already released the OS-level microcode update for XP.

I'm on XP64 though (not supported) with an undervolted, underclocked Wolfdale-DP, so I am wide open.

M$ stated XP and Vista won't be getting the updates, nor will any of the systems based on that (PoS for example) because of kernel architecture and BS. Running XP or Vista on newer HW gives me NO benefit whatsoever, the focus is on old HW (Pentium D-C2Q) which 1st comes with XP/Vista CoAs, and 2nd may actually run (much) better with these systems.

But what I mean is, most of the most-used apps like web browsers got updates to mitigate it in the application itself. Besides that, it has been stated that the older the CPU architecture, the more complicated it actually is to gain anything with speculative execution as, well, they do not speculate so much, don't have all the instructions (we are already talking hundrends of new instructions between Wolfdale and say Ivy Bridge) and are generally slower in these things so it is quite challenging to bypass the system. Am I right here?

Cause what I also mean, I got tens of rigs with Vista (Business mostly) CoAs. If we ignore the broken update application crap, the systems will run happily most of current SW still, and actually faster than with 7. Yep. it is ironic, but because of 7 getting the patches, Vista will likely be faster from now on. So I can install original Vista (and activate via phone at the worst) with some (how great?) a risc, or pirated 7 without the risc. I do have chinese CoAs for 7 Pro too, but most of the folk wont be willing to pay extra 25 bucks for it.

[Topcat]

Re: Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly

My poor harpertowns & westmeres....ohh well, unpatched and happy. Nothing has exploded.