Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #450512 > unrolled thread

INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG!

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2018-05-05 09:19 -0700
    Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-05-05 16:22 +0000
      Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-05-05 18:49 +0000
        Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-05 19:50 +0000
          Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-05-06 06:13 +0000
          Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-05-06 12:12 +0000
            Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-06 12:57 +0000
            The jig is up, once the government gains physical access to your device. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-05-06 10:13 -0700
        Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-05-06 06:13 +0000
          Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-05-06 12:16 +0000
            Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-06 05:58 -0700
    Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-05 12:24 -0400
      Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-07 08:00 -0500
        Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! fr314159@gmail.com - 2018-05-07 09:13 -0700
          Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-07 13:08 -0400
            Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-07 12:25 -0500
              Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-07 10:30 -0700
              Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! fr314159@gmail.com - 2018-05-07 10:47 -0700
                Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-07 18:03 +0000
                  Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! fr314159@gmail.com - 2018-05-07 12:24 -0700
                    Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 13:12 -0700
                      Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-05-07 22:09 +0000
                        Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 15:45 -0700
                          Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-05-07 23:12 +0000
                        Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-07 17:02 -0700
                        Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2018-05-08 15:12 +0200
                    Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-07 22:40 +0000
                      Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-05-07 23:10 +0000
                        Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-07 23:42 +0000
                          Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 16:55 -0700
                            Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 19:46 -0700
                            Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 01:59 -0700
                            Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-05-08 12:18 +0000
                              Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 05:36 -0700
                              Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 08:11 -0700
                                Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 08:42 -0700
                          Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-05-08 12:03 +0000
                            Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 05:05 -0700
                            Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-08 07:37 -0500
                              Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 06:24 -0700
                            Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-08 17:25 +0000
                              Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-05-08 17:44 +0000
                                Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-08 17:56 +0000
                                  Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-08 11:08 -0700
                                  Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-05-08 18:49 +0000
                                    Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-05-08 22:45 +0000
                                      Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-05-09 01:55 +0000
              Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-07 15:22 -0400
                Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-07 14:50 -0500
          Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-07 12:18 -0500
            Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-05-07 10:27 -0700
          Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 07:53 -0700
            Compared to SmartPhones, WinIntel is super safe. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-05-08 08:36 -0700
              Re: Compared to SmartPhones, WinIntel is super safe. Doomsdrzej <.m@nsn.s> - 2018-05-08 13:47 -0400
            Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-05-08 17:11 +0000
              Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-05-08 18:21 +0000
                Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-05-08 18:40 +0000
                  Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-05-08 18:50 +0000
                  Re: INTEL: Eight new security flaws incl. Spectre-NG! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 12:59 -0700

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#450832

F. Russell <fr@random.info> wrote:
> On Mon, 07 May 2018 23:42:24 +0000, owl wrote:
> 
>> because the client wanted to
>> add a $6,000 door and was willing to pay for it?
>>
> 
> That's not enough.  Any determined attacker could easily steal
> a pickup truck and then drive it through either the door itself
> or the flimsy wall that is adjacent to it.
> 
> Any responsible builder would therefore offer a steel girding
> around the entire house to prevent such occurrences.
> 

External vehicle barriers are cheaper.


> Oops!  Did I say steel?  I meant TITANIUM because its just as
> strong but weighs less.  What's a few extra dollars when security
> is at stake?
> 
> But what's to prevent an attacker from sawing through the roof?
> A residential roof is only thin asphalt shingles underlain by
> equally thin wooden planks.
> 

Attic filled with rolls of concertina wire.


> We'll need to add a mesh of hardened steel-bar reinforcement up
> there as well. 
> 
> Let's not also forget the Kevlar shielding to stop the bullets
> from any drive-by shootings.
> 

Sandbags in every room are effective and much cheaper.


> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!  What kind of insecure shack do you live in
> anyway?
> 

No kind.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450836

On Tue, 08 May 2018 17:25:10 +0000, owl wrote:

> 
> External vehicle barriers are cheaper.
> 
> Attic filled with rolls of concertina wire.
> 
> Sandbags in every room are effective and much cheaper.
> 
> 

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!  He apparently has never cohabited with
some stupid bitch.

No dumb pussy in her right mind would ever put up with such
"additions."  My solutions, as per usual, are the correct ones.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450841

F. Russell <fr@random.info> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 May 2018 17:25:10 +0000, owl wrote:
> 
>> 
>> External vehicle barriers are cheaper.
>> 
>> Attic filled with rolls of concertina wire.
>> 
>> Sandbags in every room are effective and much cheaper.
>> 
>> 
> 
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!  He apparently has never cohabited with
> some stupid bitch.
> 

Those were my wife's ideas.


> No dumb pussy in her right mind would ever put up with such
> "additions."  My solutions, as per usual, are the correct ones.
> 

I'd rather spend the money on ammo.  The house's structural security
only has to hold long enough for me to be alerted of the attempted
breach.  After that, human security comes into play, and it's game
over for the bad guys.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450846

On 5/8/18 10:56 AM, owl wrote:
> F. Russell <fr@random.info> wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 May 2018 17:25:10 +0000, owl wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> External vehicle barriers are cheaper.
>>>
>>> Attic filled with rolls of concertina wire.
>>>
>>> Sandbags in every room are effective and much cheaper.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!  He apparently has never cohabited with
>> some stupid bitch.
>>
> 
> Those were my wife's ideas.
> 
> 
>> No dumb pussy in her right mind would ever put up with such
>> "additions."  My solutions, as per usual, are the correct ones.
>>
> 
> I'd rather spend the money on ammo.  The house's structural security
> only has to hold long enough for me to be alerted of the attempted
> breach.  After that, human security comes into play, and it's game
> over for the bad guys.
> 
Unless they have better equipment and training.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450861

On Tue, 08 May 2018 17:56:55 +0000, owl wrote:

> 
> Those were my wife's ideas.
> 

Are you sure that she's a true female?  The Olympics, among other
venues, is riddled with phony females.

Only a karyotype will tell.

>
> After that, human security comes into play, and it's game
> over for the bad guys.
>

If you had anything of real value, the sophisticated criminal
would use a chemical gas, e.g. fentanyl, to render all inhabitants
unconscious.  You would be totally powerless as your home was
ransacked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolokol-1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450901

F. Russell <fr@random.info> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 May 2018 17:56:55 +0000, owl wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Those were my wife's ideas.
>> 
> 
> Are you sure that she's a true female?  The Olympics, among other
> venues, is riddled with phony females.
> 

She's got the body and flexibility of a gymnast, but she's not an olympian.


> Only a karyotype will tell.
> 

She does karaoke in the car, but makes up her own lyrics.

>>
>> After that, human security comes into play, and it's game
>> over for the bad guys.
>>
> 
> If you had anything of real value, the sophisticated criminal
> would use a chemical gas, e.g. fentanyl, to render all inhabitants
> unconscious.  You would be totally powerless as your home was
> ransacked.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolokol-1
> 

The gas mask is the new CPAP machine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450904

On Tue, 08 May 2018 22:45:11 +0000, owl wrote:

> 
> She's got the body and flexibility of a gymnast, but she's not an olympian.
> 

No doubt.  It would require a bit of physical agility to leap
over the walls of sandbags to get from the fridge to the microwave.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450757

On Mon, 07 May 2018 12:25:21 -0500, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>Doomsdrzej wrote:
>
>>Good points, all of them.
>
>Wrong.  
>
>Almost every system needs to fend-off attackers, within reasonable
>resource limitations.  Should skyscrapers be able withstand aircraft
>smashing into them?  No, but they had better to able to withstand any
>expected wind force or seismic event.

The Twin Towers actually _were_ built to withstand such attacks which
is why a lot of people have trouble believing that the two planes
which rammed into them actually brought them down. A lot of
professionals in the field actually suggested that explosives _had to_
have been used but I'm not a pro so I can't comment either way.

However, I think some credit nevertheless be given to Fabian and his
points were indeed good ones.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450762

Doomsdrzej wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>>
>>Almost every system needs to fend-off attackers, within reasonable
>>resource limitations.  Should skyscrapers be able withstand aircraft
>>smashing into them?  No, but they had better to able to withstand any
>>expected wind force or seismic event.
>
> (snip)

9/11 conspiracy theories are irrelevant to the point.

>However, I think some credit nevertheless be given to Fabian and his
>points were indeed good ones.

Nope.

-- 
"Maybe there aren't too many choices in Linux distros.
But then there must be a reason why Linux desktop usage is small,
right? I've been told Microsoft is dead, so they can't be the problem.
That leads me to the only possible conclusion: Linux is shitty."  -
ccretin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450734

fr314159@gmail.com wrote:

>I have said this before and I will say it again.  Must the architect
>be blamed if some asshole idiot devotes many days of scrutinizing
>the blueprints to discover some tiny potential hole through which
>to gain unauthorized entrance to his building?
>
>These "flaws" are only flaws in retrospect.  If someone uses an
>automobile to drive at high speed into a crowd of people, do we
>claim that the automobile has a serious design flaw?  No fucking way!

A better analogy would be an animal without an immune system.

-- 
"There are actually plenty of Linux-only jobs available. Don't blame
others because you elect to take convenience and money over the
non-existant principals you claim to have."  -  trolling fsckwit
"Ezekiel"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450739

On 5/7/18 10:18 AM, chrisv wrote:
> fr314159@gmail.com wrote:
> 
>> I have said this before and I will say it again.  Must the architect
>> be blamed if some asshole idiot devotes many days of scrutinizing
>> the blueprints to discover some tiny potential hole through which
>> to gain unauthorized entrance to his building?
>>
>> These "flaws" are only flaws in retrospect.  If someone uses an
>> automobile to drive at high speed into a crowd of people, do we
>> claim that the automobile has a serious design flaw?  No fucking way!
> 
> A better analogy would be an animal without an immune system.
> 
It is not without an immune system, but the immune system has weaknesses.

If we want to look at blame, absolutely the people who exploit these 
weaknesses are to blame, but we can also look to see if the designers 
should have REASONABLY been expected to anticipate THIS attack and 
prevent it.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They 
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel 
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450807

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 1:13:04 AM UTC+9, fr31...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 7, 2018 at 9:00:55 AM UTC-4, chrisv wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Such a complicated world, we live in...
> > It's no wonder that things go wrong.
> > 
> 
> Nothing has gone wrong.  Absolutely fucking nothing.
> 
> The design of the Intel processor is fantastic.  It pushes current
> technology to the limit and squeezes extra performance through the
> use of clever devices such as pipelining, hyperthreading, and branch
> prediction.  The Intel processor is a wonder to behold.
> 
> The problem is with these asshole idiots who, presumably with a LOT
> of time on their hands, just continually search for ways to exploit
> the hardware.

well said...  so when will these assholes start looking at the ARM CPUs as well?  For the time being the Intel and Windoze are their primary targets....

Using RARE hardware and software is the best security yo can get!!!
 
> I have said this before and I will say it again.  Must the architect
> be blamed if some asshole idiot devotes many days of scrutinizing
> the blueprints to discover some tiny potential hole through which
> to gain unauthorized entrance to his building?
> 
> These "flaws" are only flaws in retrospect.  If someone uses an
> automobile to drive at high speed into a crowd of people, do we
> claim that the automobile has a serious design flaw?  No fucking way!
> 
> But yet many will do just that.  The designer of the former World Trade
> Center was even blamed for incompetence because his skyscraper did
> not withstand the impact of a passenger jet.  What lunacy!  No architect
> in the world would ever anticipate that some asshole idiot would
> fly an airliner into his building.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450813 — Compared to SmartPhones, WinIntel is super safe.

Compared to SmartPhones, WinIntel is super safe.

ConsumerReports.ORG, Dec 2016:

  In the wake of last month's "Gooligan" attacks, which 
  targeted more than a million Android devices and 
  gained access to the users' Google accounts, experts 
  are suggesting that a flood of simlar smartphone 
  hacking incidents may be on the way in 2017.     

  The Chinese hackers behind Gooligan were making as 
  much as $500,000 a month by exploiting their access 
  to the phones, according to Michael Shaulov...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450837 — Re: Compared to SmartPhones, WinIntel is super safe.

On Tue, 08 May 2018 08:36:43 -0700 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me  @. wrote:

>Compared to SmartPhones, WinIntel is super safe.
>
>ConsumerReports.ORG, Dec 2016:
>
>  In the wake of last month's "Gooligan" attacks, which 
>  targeted more than a million Android devices and 
>  gained access to the users' Google accounts, experts 
>  are suggesting that a flood of simlar smartphone 
>  hacking incidents may be on the way in 2017.     
>
>  The Chinese hackers behind Gooligan were making as 
>  much as $500,000 a month by exploiting their access 
>  to the phones, according to Michael Shaulov...

Goolag Android.

I'm looking forward to replacing mine with the first Purism phone in
Fabruary.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450828

On Tue, 08 May 2018 07:53:44 -0700, Takuya Saitoh wrote:

> 
> For the time being the Intel and Windoze are their primary targets....
> 

These side-channel attack vulnerabilities apply mainly to "cloud"
services that host virtual machines.

The personal workstation user should have no concern unless he
is in the habit of running foreign software on his machine.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450849

On 2018-05-08, F. Russell <fr@random.info> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 May 2018 07:53:44 -0700, Takuya Saitoh wrote:
>
>> 
>> For the time being the Intel and Windoze are their primary targets....
>> 
>
> These side-channel attack vulnerabilities apply mainly to "cloud"
> services that host virtual machines.
>
> The personal workstation user should have no concern unless he
> is in the habit of running foreign software on his machine.
>
Yep, no concern for someone not running cracked binaries ;)

-- 
press any key to continue or any other to quit...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450858

On Tue, 08 May 2018 18:21:24 +0000, Melzzzzz wrote:

>
> Yep, no concern for someone not running cracked binaries ;)
>

Javascript, another possible vector, is "cracked" throughout.
All javascript, as well as all client-side scripting, should
be outlawed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450862

On 2018-05-08, F. Russell <fr@random.info> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 May 2018 18:21:24 +0000, Melzzzzz wrote:
>
>>
>> Yep, no concern for someone not running cracked binaries ;)
>>
>
> Javascript, another possible vector, is "cracked" throughout.
> All javascript, as well as all client-side scripting, should
> be outlawed.

Javascript is patched in a browsers.
>
>


-- 
press any key to continue or any other to quit...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450873

On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 12:40:43 PM UTC-6, F. Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 08 May 2018 18:21:24 +0000, Melzzzzz wrote:
> 
> >
> > Yep, no concern for someone not running cracked binaries ;)
> >
> 
> Javascript, another possible vector, is "cracked" throughout.
> All javascript, as well as all client-side scripting, should
> be outlawed.

Right, because, as we all know, everything else is safe as can be
and always has been <eyeroll>.  Just like any other language, JS
isn't immune to the effects of poor programing. Of the most main 
stream browsers (not that it's all that main stream), Safari has the 
biggest problems:

<https://lab.wallarm.com/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-safari-in-client-side-attacks-56d0cb61275a>

I'm surprised Apple isn't more on top of things with Safari,
it seems they lag behind the competition in the last few
years.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web