• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel Processors Hit with LVI Security Vulnerabilities, Mitigation Hits Performance Hard

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
38,314 (8.39/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling AMD Wraith Prism
Memory 2x 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3000
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Recon3D PCIe
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Microsoft Sidewinder X4
Software Windows 10 Pro
A new class of security vulnerabilities affect Intel processors, which can cause them to leak out sensitive information if probed in a certain way, but that's not the worst news for Intel and its users. The software- or firmware-level mitigation for this vulnerability can inflict performance reductions "ranging from 2x to 19x," according to a report by The Register. A full mitigation for the new Load Value Injection (LVI) class of vulnerabilities requires Intel to redesign software compilers. The vulnerability is chronicled under CVE-2020-0551 and Intel-SA-00334. It is not a remote code execution threat, however, it puts multi-tenant machines, such as physical servers handling multiple tenants via virtual servers.

"LVI turns previous data extraction attacks around, like Meltdown, Foreshadow, ZombieLoad, RIDL and Fallout, and defeats all existing mitigations. Instead of directly leaking data from the victim to the attacker, we proceed in the opposite direction: we smuggle — "inject" — the attacker's data through hidden processor buffers into a victim program and hijack transient execution to acquire sensitive information, such as the victim's fingerprints or passwords," the reasearchers write in the abstract of their paper describing the vulnerability. Anti-virus manufacturer BitDefender independently discovered LVI and shared its study with Intel. The company could publish its findings in February. Additional technical details are found in the group's website here.



Many Thanks to biffzinker for the tip.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site
 

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
38,314 (8.39/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling AMD Wraith Prism
Memory 2x 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3000
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Recon3D PCIe
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Microsoft Sidewinder X4
Software Windows 10 Pro
At this point I think the only way Intel can fight these vulnerability discoveries is by killing the bug bounty program, or significantly reducing the bounty. The program has clearly sprung up a cottage industry of security researchers (uni professors and their college grad minions) bruteforcing Intel processors for vulnerabilities that they can write papers on (earn citations), report back to Intel, and claim the cash bounties. The BBP has become a fountainhead of headache for CTOs and CIOs.

AMD is safer only because its market footprint is too small in the datacenter space, most of these side-channel attacks affect datacenters, and you can't hack AMD processors for rich bounties (it's similar to the "Macs don't get viruses" fallacy of the 1990s and 2000s).
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
2,545 (0.60/day)
System Name Dire Wolf II
Processor Intel Core i7 7820HQ (Undervolted and stable at 3.9Ghz)
Motherboard HP 8275
Memory 32GB DDR4 2133Mhz
Video Card(s) Palit Game Rock GTX1080Ti (eGPU: AKiTiO Node Pro), nVidia Quadro M1200 (GTX750Ti) 4GB GDDR5
Storage Intel 600p 512GB
Display(s) HP Z27q (5120x2880) + Dell P2715Q (3840x2160)
Case HP ZBook 15 G4
Audio Device(s) Musiland Monitor 02 US, Tin Audio T2 Pro IEM
Power Supply 150W HP PSU (for Laptop) + Corsair SF600 in the Node Pro
Mouse Corsair M65 Pro
Keyboard Corsair K95 RGB
Software Windows 10 Enterprise 64-bit
Err, but the whole point of the bug bounty program is for people to actively research and report vulnerabilities. You can't fix what you don't know. The cottage industry is an important part of what drives security research, both in CPUs and in other areas.

Hiding the issues won't help the computing world, because determined attackers will find (a subset of) them.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
3,091 (1.21/day)
At this point I think the only way Intel can fight these vulnerability discoveries is by killing the bug bounty program, or significantly reducing the bounty. The program has clearly sprung up a cottage industry of security researchers (uni professors and their college grad minions) bruteforcing Intel processors for vulnerabilities that they can write papers on (earn citations), report back to Intel, and claim the cash bounties. The BBP has become a fountainhead of headache for CTOs and CIOs.
That's ridiculous ~ you want your creditability down in the gutter, much like what many of us forum dwellers complain about, that's the one point plan that'll instantly teleport you over there. Killing BBP will spook more potential buyers especially in the enterprise segment!
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
8,978 (3.63/day)
System Name GPD-Q9
Processor Rockchip RK-3288 1.8ghz quad core
Motherboard GPD Q9_V6_150528
Cooling Passive
Memory 2GB DDR3
Video Card(s) Mali T764
Storage 16GB Samsung NAND
Display(s) IPS 1024x600
At this point I think the only way Intel can fight these vulnerability discoveries is by killing the bug bounty program, or significantly reducing the bounty.
I disagree. This is a difficult learning process for both Intel and AMD, but the fruits of the bounty programs are clear, software and hardware are getting more secure and less prone to being hacked by criminals, malintent entities and even governments.
The program has clearly sprung up a cottage industry of security researchers (uni professors and college grads) bruteforcing Intel processors for vulnerabilities that they can write papers on (earn citations), report back to Intel, and claim the cash bounties.
Nothing wrong with that. Been happening for decades, now they are just getting reward for their efforts, and rightly so.
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2010
Messages
4,979 (1.45/day)
Location
Rīga, Latvia
System Name HELLSTAR
Processor Intel 5960X @ 4.4GHz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-X99-UD3
Cooling Custom Loop. 360+240 rads. 5x Nidec Servo Gentle Typhoons. AC CUPLEX KRYOS NEXT.
Memory 4x8GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000MHz 15-17-17-36 CR1
Video Card(s) ASUS 1080 Ti FE + water block
Storage Optane 900P + Samsung PM981 NVMe 1TB + 750 EVO 500GB
Display(s) Philips PHL BDM3270
Case Phanteks Enthoo Evolv ATX Tempered Glass
Audio Device(s) Sound Blaster ZxR
Power Supply Fractal Design Newton R3 1000W
Mouse Razer Basilisk
Keyboard Razer Deathstalker
Software Windows 10 insider
This is sad.

Bta should indeed tame down. Jesus(the living one) might see it.

No progress and development should be ceased because of hiding things down.

Black market will live further, now it is just more profitable to report it officially, before those things were sold to whoever did the offer...

If one cannot comprehend it, it is sad. The can of worms is open.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
8,978 (3.63/day)
System Name GPD-Q9
Processor Rockchip RK-3288 1.8ghz quad core
Motherboard GPD Q9_V6_150528
Cooling Passive
Memory 2GB DDR3
Video Card(s) Mali T764
Storage 16GB Samsung NAND
Display(s) IPS 1024x600
This is sad.

Bta should indeed tame down. Jesus(the living one) might see it.

No progress and development should be ceased because of hiding things down.

Black market will live further, now it is just more profitable to report it officially, before those things were sold to whoever did the offer...

If one cannot comprehend it, it is sad. The can of worms is open.
I think you're over-reacting just a little bit.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
3,643 (2.46/day)
Processor Ryzen 5 3600
Motherboard MSI B450 Tomahawk ATX
Cooling Scythe Kotetsu with AM4 bracket
Memory PNY Anarchy-X XLR8 Red DDR4 3200 MHz C15-17-17-17-35
Video Card(s) MSI GeForce RTX 2060 GAMING Z 6G
Storage Samsung 970 EVO NVMe M.2 500 GB, SanDisk Ultra II 480 GB
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster C27H711 OC refresh rate 110Hz
Case Phantek Eclipse P400S (PH-EC416PS)
Audio Device(s) EVGA NU Audio
Power Supply EVGA 850 BQ
Mouse SteelSeries Rival 310
Keyboard Logitech G G413 Silver
Software Windows 10 Professional 64-bit v1903
Intel is unable to fix their current CPU's with a microcode update this time to flush the buffers.

microcode updates to flush affected buffers are no longer sufficient. Instead, complementary to existing Spectre software mitigations, LVI necessitates compiler patches to insert explicit lfence speculation barriers which serialize the processor pipeline after potentially every vulnerable load instruction. Additionally and even worse, due to implicit loads, certain instructions have to be blacklisted, including the ubiquitous x86 ret instruction.
The SGX enclaves are affected by LVI. The expected performance impact 2x-19x is for accessing a SGX enclave. If I understood it correctly.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 18, 2010
Messages
4,979 (1.45/day)
Location
Rīga, Latvia
System Name HELLSTAR
Processor Intel 5960X @ 4.4GHz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-X99-UD3
Cooling Custom Loop. 360+240 rads. 5x Nidec Servo Gentle Typhoons. AC CUPLEX KRYOS NEXT.
Memory 4x8GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000MHz 15-17-17-36 CR1
Video Card(s) ASUS 1080 Ti FE + water block
Storage Optane 900P + Samsung PM981 NVMe 1TB + 750 EVO 500GB
Display(s) Philips PHL BDM3270
Case Phanteks Enthoo Evolv ATX Tempered Glass
Audio Device(s) Sound Blaster ZxR
Power Supply Fractal Design Newton R3 1000W
Mouse Razer Basilisk
Keyboard Razer Deathstalker
Software Windows 10 insider
Intel is unable to fix their current CPU's with a microcode update this time to flush the buffers.



The SGX enclaves are affected by LVI. The expected performance impact 2x-19x is for accessing a SGX enclave. If I understood it correctly.
Hard to tell.

"In our current assessment, we believe that LVI is mainly only relevant to Intel SGX enclaves. However, in the academic paper we showed that none of the ingredients for LVI are unique to Intel SGX and LVI attacks can in principle apply to non-SGX traditional cross-process, cross-virtual-machine, or user-to-kernel environments."
 
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
183 (0.10/day)
Location
Perth , West Australia
System Name gamer 14
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 3700 X
Motherboard Asus AMD X 570
Cooling Standard Air
Memory Corsair Vengeance 2 x 8 gb DDR 4
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon 5700 XT 8 GB Strix
Storage Intel SSD 240 gb Speed Demon & WD 240 SSD Blue
Display(s) Asus XG 32 V ROG
Case Corsair AIR ATX
Audio Device(s) Realtech standard
Power Supply Corsair 850 Modular
Mouse CM Havoc
Keyboard Corsair Cherry Mechanical
Software Win 10
Benchmark Scores Unigine_Superposition 4K ultra 7582
At this point I think the only way Intel can fight these vulnerability discoveries is by killing the bug bounty program, or significantly reducing the bounty. The program has clearly sprung up a cottage industry of security researchers (uni professors and their college grad minions) bruteforcing Intel processors for vulnerabilities that they can write papers on (earn citations), report back to Intel, and claim the cash bounties. The BBP has become a fountainhead of headache for CTOs and CIOs.

AMD is safer only because its market footprint is too small in the datacenter space, most of these side-channel attacks affect datacenters, and you can't hack AMD processors for rich bounties (it's similar to the "Macs don't get viruses" fallacy of the 1990s and 2000s).
If any , does this affect the regular Intel gamer or home user ?
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
1,525 (0.63/day)
Location
Athens, Greece
System Name 3 systems: Gaming / Internet / HTPC
Processor Intel i5 4460 / Thuban 1455T(Unlocked 645) @ 3.7GHz @ 1.30V / A6 7400K
Motherboard ASRock Z97 Extreme6 / Gigabyte GA-990XA-UD3 / ASUS FM2+
Cooling Modified AM2 Asetek MicroChill / Noctua U12S / CoolerMaster TX2
Memory 16GB Kingston KHX1866C10D3 / 16GB Adata 2133MHz / 8GB Kingston 2400MHz (DDR3)
Video Card(s) GT 710 / XFX RX 580 8GB + GT 620 (PhysX) / A6 7400K iGPU
Storage Intel NVMe 500GB, Samsung NVMe 250GB + more / Kingston 240GB + more / Samsung SSD 120GB
Display(s) Samsung LE32D550 32'' TV(2 systems connected) / LG 42''
Case Sharkoon Rebel 12 / Sharkoon Rebel 9 / Xigmatek Midguard
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply Chieftec 850W / Sharkoon 650W / Chieftec 560W
Mouse CoolerMaster / Rapoo / Logitech
Keyboard CoolerMaster / Microsoft / Logitech
Software Windows
At this point I think the only way Intel can fight these vulnerability discoveries is by killing the bug bounty program, or significantly reducing the bounty. The program has clearly sprung up a cottage industry of security researchers (uni professors and their college grad minions) bruteforcing Intel processors for vulnerabilities that they can write papers on (earn citations), report back to Intel, and claim the cash bounties. The BBP has become a fountainhead of headache for CTOs and CIOs.

AMD is safer only because its market footprint is too small in the datacenter space, most of these side-channel attacks affect datacenters, and you can't hack AMD processors for rich bounties (it's similar to the "Macs don't get viruses" fallacy of the 1990s and 2000s).
Putting the head in the sand doesn't make the CPUs more secure. And the latest example with those two AMD vulnerabilities prove that Intel is paying for ANY security bug, not just for those in Intel CPUs. And if we consider that we have a dozen or even dozens of vulnerabilities of Intel CPUs already exposed, I guess most of those researchers will turn to AMD CPUs hoping to prove your point, that AMD CPUs are not as secured as people think or say. That means that it's not in Intel's best interest to stop financing those researchers now, now that almost all Intel CPUs vulnerabilities are exposed and researchers might turn to AMD CPUs. Except if of course AMD CPUs ARE in fact much more secure and even now a researcher will have more chances with an Intel CPU than an AMD CPU.
 

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
38,314 (8.39/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling AMD Wraith Prism
Memory 2x 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3000
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Recon3D PCIe
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Microsoft Sidewinder X4
Software Windows 10 Pro
If any , does this affect the regular Intel gamer or home user ?
No, but if Intel decides to shove a mitigation down our throats via Windows 10 Cumulative Update or BIOS updates, it will cost performance all the same.

As I mentioned in many older threads, the problem is not the CVE discoveries, but the forced mitigations chipping away at performance. Even if by tiny bits.
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
53 (0.03/day)
Processor Intel i5-3350P
Cooling Scythe Kotetsu
Memory 8GB mixed
Video Card(s) Sapphire Nitro RX 470
Storage 840 EVO + WD Red
Display(s) DELL U2412M
Case CM N200
Audio Device(s) O2+ODAC
Power Supply EVGA Bronze 600W
Mouse Mionix Naos 7000
Keyboard 6Gv2 (it's shit)
Software W10
At this point I think the only way Intel can fight these vulnerability discoveries is by killing the bug bounty program, or significantly reducing the bounty.
Ah yes, security through obscurity, because that has ever worked before.

Everybody gangsta until a new wave of bitcoin ransomware.
 

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
38,314 (8.39/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling AMD Wraith Prism
Memory 2x 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3000
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Recon3D PCIe
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Microsoft Sidewinder X4
Software Windows 10 Pro
Everybody gangsta until a new wave of bitcoin ransomware.
Name a ransomware that leverages a CPU-level vulnerability. Bonus points for one that leverages a side-channel attack vector.
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
53 (0.03/day)
Processor Intel i5-3350P
Cooling Scythe Kotetsu
Memory 8GB mixed
Video Card(s) Sapphire Nitro RX 470
Storage 840 EVO + WD Red
Display(s) DELL U2412M
Case CM N200
Audio Device(s) O2+ODAC
Power Supply EVGA Bronze 600W
Mouse Mionix Naos 7000
Keyboard 6Gv2 (it's shit)
Software W10
It is now in the toolkit of malware writers so why wouldn't they use it.

And trying to shift the blame on researchers is ridiculous, all of these attacks stem from a single decision Intel made about deferring access checks in speculation to chase cheap performance gains and now they are getting punished for it.
 

Dredi

New Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2019
Messages
24 (0.13/day)
As I mentioned in many older threads, the problem is not the CVE discoveries, but the forced mitigations chipping away at performance. Even if by tiny bits.
How insane can you get? If no bug bounties are present, the findings could be sold on the black market instead. Now the work is effectively incentivized making the black marked angle a lot more difficult to pursue.

The mitigations are important in this scheme, as otherwise we will end up with machines that have publicly known vunerlabilities. You don’t find malware using these exploits, as the vunerlabilities are typically fixed at the time the research papers are released.

Also, no-one is forcing you to use the mitigations, so stop complaining! Just install linux and disable them, problem solved. Most of the windows mitigations can also be disabled if you like living on the edge.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
11,540 (5.68/day)
Location
Mars
Processor i7 8700k 4.7Ghz @ 1.26v
Motherboard AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370
Cooling beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 2100/5500
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD
Display(s) Eizo Foris FG2421
Case Fractal Design Define C TG
Power Supply EVGA G2 750w
Mouse Logitech G502 Protheus Spectrum
Keyboard Sharkoon MK80 (Brown)
Software W10 x64
I figured it out. CVE actually stands for Corona Virus for Electronics.

It gets the elderly architectures first.
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
8,978 (3.63/day)
System Name GPD-Q9
Processor Rockchip RK-3288 1.8ghz quad core
Motherboard GPD Q9_V6_150528
Cooling Passive
Memory 2GB DDR3
Video Card(s) Mali T764
Storage 16GB Samsung NAND
Display(s) IPS 1024x600
Name a ransomware that leverages a CPU-level vulnerability. Bonus points for one that leverages a side-channel attack vector.
None. And there aren't likely to be any.
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2010
Messages
4,979 (1.45/day)
Location
Rīga, Latvia
System Name HELLSTAR
Processor Intel 5960X @ 4.4GHz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-X99-UD3
Cooling Custom Loop. 360+240 rads. 5x Nidec Servo Gentle Typhoons. AC CUPLEX KRYOS NEXT.
Memory 4x8GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000MHz 15-17-17-36 CR1
Video Card(s) ASUS 1080 Ti FE + water block
Storage Optane 900P + Samsung PM981 NVMe 1TB + 750 EVO 500GB
Display(s) Philips PHL BDM3270
Case Phanteks Enthoo Evolv ATX Tempered Glass
Audio Device(s) Sound Blaster ZxR
Power Supply Fractal Design Newton R3 1000W
Mouse Razer Basilisk
Keyboard Razer Deathstalker
Software Windows 10 insider
Also, no-one is forcing you to use the mitigations, so stop complaining! Just install linux and disable them, problem solved. Most of the windows mitigations can also be disabled if you like living on the edge.
No the cannot be disabled already for a year+. Those are baked permanently in the kernel.

Your provided solution doesn't make sense much either.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,561 (0.66/day)
Location
Czech republic
Processor Core i7 3770K
Motherboard Gigabyte Z77X-UD3H
Memory 16GB
Video Card(s) Sapphire Radeon Rx 580 Nitro+ 8GB
Storage Samsung 850 PRO 256GB + Samsung 970 PRO 1TB
Display(s) Dell U2415
Case Fractal Design Define R6 Black
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster ZxR
Power Supply Seasonic PRIME Ultra 650W Gold
Mouse Roccat Kone EMP
Software Windows 10 x64
At this point I think the only way Intel can fight these vulnerability discoveries is by killing the bug bounty program, or significantly reducing the bounty. The program has clearly sprung up a cottage industry of security researchers (uni professors and their college grad minions) bruteforcing Intel processors for vulnerabilities that they can write papers on (earn citations), report back to Intel, and claim the cash bounties. The BBP has become a fountainhead of headache for CTOs and CIOs.

AMD is safer only because its market footprint is too small in the datacenter space, most of these side-channel attacks affect datacenters, and you can't hack AMD processors for rich bounties (it's similar to the "Macs don't get viruses" fallacy of the 1990s and 2000s).
You forgot to take the brain pill today or what?
 

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
38,314 (8.39/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling AMD Wraith Prism
Memory 2x 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3000
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Recon3D PCIe
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Microsoft Sidewinder X4
Software Windows 10 Pro
How insane can you get? If no bug bounties are present, the findings could be sold on the black market instead. Now the work is effectively incentivized making the black marked angle a lot more difficult to pursue.
Bug Bounty Program provides a legitimate way of making money and paying taxes. Selling exploits on the dark web isn't something you can write in your income-tax filing, resume, or PhD application (not sure about its legality). I doubt there would be half as many cybersec researchers without the program (legit means of making money and earning academic citations).

A different kind of cyber-sec researchers are funded by Wall Street (hedge fund managers or those holding shorting positions against tech companies, remember CTSFlaws?).

The mitigations are important in this scheme, as otherwise we will end up with machines that have publicly known vunerlabilities. You don’t find malware using these exploits, as the vunerlabilities are typically fixed at the time the research papers are released.
All that BBPs without permanent non-disclosure clauses end up achieving is giving malware writers ideas so they can go after the vast majority of computers that stay unpatched or rarely patched.

Also, no-one is forcing you to use the mitigations, so stop complaining! Just install linux and disable them, problem solved. Most of the windows mitigations can also be disabled if you like living on the edge.
These mitigations are made part of cumulative updates that include other fixes or feature updates, and eventually become part of Windows codebase with each version. The manner in which they're distributed makes them a ramthroat.
 

Dredi

New Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2019
Messages
24 (0.13/day)
No the cannot be disabled already for a year+. Those are baked permanently in the kernel.

Your provided solution doesn't make sense much either.
Well then use the old kernel until the new one is faster with mitigations than the old one without mitigations. Gentoo works as well, if you wish to have better control over what security patches you wish to have in your computer. As for windows you can use inSpectre tool to make your computer less safe. Easy.

Bug Bounty Program provides a legitimate way of making money and paying taxes. Selling exploits on the dark web isn't something you can write in your income-tax filing, resume, or PhD application. I doubt there would be half as many cybersec researchers without the program (legit means of making money).
You are absolutely correct! Without this the same easy exploits could be achievable to black hats, who now have much harder time than before due to having to beat a bunch a researchers to the party.

also, please refrain from the ”security through obscurity” -fallacy.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 18, 2010
Messages
4,979 (1.45/day)
Location
Rīga, Latvia
System Name HELLSTAR
Processor Intel 5960X @ 4.4GHz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-X99-UD3
Cooling Custom Loop. 360+240 rads. 5x Nidec Servo Gentle Typhoons. AC CUPLEX KRYOS NEXT.
Memory 4x8GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000MHz 15-17-17-36 CR1
Video Card(s) ASUS 1080 Ti FE + water block
Storage Optane 900P + Samsung PM981 NVMe 1TB + 750 EVO 500GB
Display(s) Philips PHL BDM3270
Case Phanteks Enthoo Evolv ATX Tempered Glass
Audio Device(s) Sound Blaster ZxR
Power Supply Fractal Design Newton R3 1000W
Mouse Razer Basilisk
Keyboard Razer Deathstalker
Software Windows 10 insider
Well then use the old kernel until the new one is faster with mitigations than the old one without mitigations. Gentoo works as well, if you wish to have better control over what security patches you wish to have in your computer. As for windows you can use inSpectre tool to make your computer less safe. Easy.
Refrain from commenting if you do not have a clue about windows ecosystem.

Linux is not a magic bullet either way regarding to CPU flaw exposure.
 

Dredi

New Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2019
Messages
24 (0.13/day)
Refrain from commenting if you do not have a clue about windows ecosystem.

Linux is not a magic bullet either way regarding to CPU flaw exposure.
Do you imply that the inspectre tool does not work? You can also make hardware changes to limit the number of mitigations that are loaded when the OS starts.
 
Top