YAIV - Yet Another Intel Vulnerability

This is like the twelve days of Christmas gone wrong for Intel.

Lol at some people having selective reading when it applies to their favorite team. This is a new one, not plundervolt from yesterday.
 
YA IntraVenous, just about spells it out.
A direct assault on the internals of my PC!
 
And yet Intel CEO Bob Swan declares Intel not interested anymore in leadership in x86 CPU. This is just incredible.
Intel just want to take 30% share in value, in world silicon.
New 10nm++ CPU in 2021 will face 5nm Zen 4 AMD CPU. The difference will be outrageous, very far from Core vs Excavator, more like what used to be Intel vs VIA, and Intel cannot do anything about it. It's just game over for Intel in the CPU market.
 
Jandor said:
And yet Intel CEO Bob Swan declares Intel not interested anymore in leadership in x86 CPU. This is just incredible.
Intel just want to take 30% share in value, in world silicon.
New 10nm++ CPU in 2021 will face 5nm Zen 4 AMD CPU. The difference will be outrageous, very far from Core vs Excavator, more like what used to be Intel vs VIA, and Intel cannot do anything about it. It's just game over for Intel in the CPU market.
Click to expand...

To be honest, the next big thing from Intel will probably be amazing. It's going to take them a while, sure, but they have enough inertia to weather something like this for quite some time. Like I get the hyperbole is, LOL INTEL DEAD, but let's be serious here for a moment.
 
Nasgul said:
And yet, I've never had a single issue with any of my P4 to i9 CPUs systems I've built over the years.

Kinda like the idiots who: Oh my God, don't use Windows/PC, you'll get viruses, get a Mac or a Chrome book...........
Click to expand...

This is a pretty hot take that reads "I don't actually have anything of importance to say so I'll just add nothing of value".
 
i'm surprised there isn't a class action lawsuit being filed yet. as smart as they are over at intel and nobody knew anything about any of this crap? i really believe they were cheating all along just to keep the "perfomance crown" because look at when athlon 64 came out and they had fastest chip in the world, everyone jumped on the amd train even though they weren't even buying the top of the line chip. then intel core comes out then everyone jumps back on intel even though very few were buying the fastest chip.

well.. it's biting them in the ass now. prob one of the reasons there are more and more people switching to ryzen, because it's if nothing else, it's a more secure platform. plus they didn't start losing their minds and try to start charging $2000 for desktop chips like intel planned on doing when they came out with the 6950X. Plus they don't try to lock down their technologies. Just take the whole gsync/freesync situation for example.

I really just like the way AMD does business. They are to me looking out more for their customers and making computing better for everyone in general instead of just looking at the bottom line and how they can screw people out of their money and crush their competition with frivolous lawsuits to try and put them out of business so they can have a monopoly. and you know that's a rare thing in this day and age. sad but true.
 
d3athf1sh said:
i'm surprised there isn't a class action lawsuit being filed yet. as smart as they are over at intel and nobody knew anything about any of this crap? i really believe they were cheating all along just to keep the "perfomance crown" because look at when athlon 64 came out and they had fastest chip in the world, everyone jumped on the amd train even though they weren't even buying the top of the line chip. then intel core comes out then everyone jumps back on intel even though very few were buying the fastest chip.

well.. it's biting them in the ass now. prob one of the reasons there are more and more people switching to ryzen, because it's if nothing else, it's a more secure platform. plus they didn't start losing their minds and try to start charging $2000 for desktop chips like intel planned on doing when they came out with the 6950X. Plus they don't try to lock down their technologies. Just take the whole gsync/freesync situation for example.

I really just like the way AMD does business. They are to me looking out more for their customers and making computing better for everyone in general instead of just looking at the bottom line and how they can screw people out of their money and crush their competition with frivolous lawsuits to try and put them out of business so they can have a monopoly. and you know that's a rare thing in this day and age. sad but true.
Click to expand...

Oh they saw this coming alright. Why else do you think Krzanich resigned as CEO last year?
 
This is a disturbing trend. Not because the continuing focus on Intel's hardware, but the fact the focus is directed toward hardware. I think there has been a paradigm shift in the behaviour and mentality of the people looking for vunerabilities, be they friend or foe. I am sure AMD would or could suffer similar scrutiny, if the manpower was focused in their hardware.
 
vick1000 said:
I am sure AMD would or could suffer similar scrutiny, if the manpower was focused in their hardware.
Click to expand...

If you are so sure - Then you don't fundamentally understand the differences between Intel and AMD CPU architecture. It's not for lack of trying, it is the forethought that AMD has put in their CPUs ON security. Intel took shortcuts and is paying the price.

Edit: in essence, the intel security has been a rather lax afterthought and they are "chasing their tail" patching each vulnerability as it's found. AMD designed in security from the start, and even when they have be caught (much more rare than Intel) - the security patching has nowhere near the impact on performance as Intel.
 
Last edited:
In short, one company wanted to win benchmarks at any cost. One wanted to make the cheapest, easiest way-to-go-fast design and most money from it. One wanted security through platform/management systems and not in the actual workings of the cpu; one company benefited from that until now.

The other company is AMD.
 
Stanley Pain said:
To be honest, the next big thing from Intel will probably be amazing. It's going to take them a while, sure, but they have enough inertia to weather something like this for quite some time. Like I get the hyperbole is, LOL INTEL DEAD, but let's be serious here for a moment.
Click to expand...

Yea sure, just as soon as they poach more employees from the small fry guy.
 
Mega6 said:
They did. Keller can't magically create a CPU in a day for Intel. Still a few years out.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know, that was the joke.

He joined in 2018. Probably takes about 5 years from design to production give or take. Until then Intel is going to coast for the most part.
 
N4CR said:
In short, one company wanted to win benchmarks at any cost. One wanted to make the cheapest, easiest way-to-go-fast design and most money from it. One wanted security through platform/management systems and not in the actual workings of the cpu; one company benefited from that until now.
Click to expand...

And one spent a decade shipping a part that was obsoleted by its own predecessor. Guess which.

N4CR said:
The other company is AMD.
Click to expand...

That's the one.

Mega6 said:
If you are so sure - Then you don't fundamentally understand the differences between Intel and AMD CPU architecture. It's not for lack of trying, it is the forethought that AMD has put in their CPUs ON security. Intel took shortcuts and is paying the price.

Edit: in essence, the intel security has been a rather lax afterthought and they are "chasing their tail" patching each vulnerability as it's found. AMD designed in security from the start, and even when they have be caught (much more rare than Intel) - the security patching has nowhere near the impact on performance as Intel.
Click to expand...

That's Tom's article #3. You really should broaden your horizons -- and perhaps research why Tom's isn't very well respected. Hint: you two have a lot in common.


Consider that Skylake is so old that there are several generations of the architecture present in basically every server room in the world. Wonder why researchers are targeting it and not AMD?

It's not some heartfelt 'help the underdog' BS.
 
Mega6 said:
If you are so sure - Then you don't fundamentally understand the differences between Intel and AMD CPU architecture. It's not for lack of trying, it is the forethought that AMD has put in their CPUs ON security. Intel took shortcuts and is paying the price.

Edit: in essence, the intel security has been a rather lax afterthought and they are "chasing their tail" patching each vulnerability as it's found. AMD designed in security from the start, and even when they have be caught (much more rare than Intel) - the security patching has nowhere near the impact on performance as Intel.
Click to expand...
You don't understand that in that aricle it is focusing on current exploits. The focus of firms exposing the vunerabilities have been Intel architechture. That article does nothing to enforce your point. Please link or explain the "security" differences between any AMD and Intel process. AMD has cache on it's die just like any other medoern CPU, and how that cache is used to improve performance could easily be the target of exploiters if AMD had more market share in the business world.
 
vick1000 said:
You don't understand that in that aricle it is focusing on current exploits. The focus of firms exposing the vunerabilities have been Intel architechture. That article does nothing to enforce your point. Please link or explain the "security" differences between any AMD and Intel process. AMD has cache on it's die just like any other medoern CPU, and how that cache is used to improve performance could easily be the target of exploiters if AMD had more market share in the business world.
Click to expand...

example 1
Plundervolt attacks intel SGX. AMD is not affected. Has noting to do with cache.

A lot of attacks on intel are against speculative execution. AMD has built in checkers in the CPU. Guess who doesn't?

example2
"AMD is aware of new research claiming new speculative execution attacks that may allow access to privileged kernel data. Based on external and internal analysis, AMD believes it is not vulnerable to the SWAPGS variant attacks because AMD products are designed not to speculate on the new GS value following a speculative SWAPGS."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAPGS_(security_vulnerability)


Total CPU vulnerabilities
See the pattern yet? So for those not keeping score..Intel wins. yeah click the links below.

intel - 247

AMD - 16

AMD's CPUs, including the latest Ryzen and Epyc processors, are immune to:

  • Meltdown (Spectre v3)
  • Spectre v3a
  • LazyFPU
  • TLBleed
  • Spectre v1.2
  • L1TF/Foreshadow
  • SPOILER
  • SpectreRSB
  • MDS attacks (ZombieLoad, Fallout, RIDL)
  • SWAPGS
So that directly addresses two points in Intel architecture with links of why and how Intel affected and AMD is not. I'll leave it to you to address the other 245.
 
Last edited:
d3athf1sh said:
i'm surprised there isn't a class action lawsuit being filed yet. as smart as they are over at intel and nobody knew anything about any of this crap? i really believe they were cheating all along just to keep the "perfomance crown" because look at when athlon 64 came out and they had fastest chip in the world, everyone jumped on the amd train even though they weren't even buying the top of the line chip. then intel core comes out then everyone jumps back on intel even though very few were buying the fastest chip.

well.. it's biting them in the ass now. prob one of the reasons there are more and more people switching to ryzen, because it's if nothing else, it's a more secure platform. plus they didn't start losing their minds and try to start charging $2000 for desktop chips like intel planned on doing when they came out with the 6950X. Plus they don't try to lock down their technologies. Just take the whole gsync/freesync situation for example.

I really just like the way AMD does business. They are to me looking out more for their customers and making computing better for everyone in general instead of just looking at the bottom line and how they can screw people out of their money and crush their competition with frivolous lawsuits to try and put them out of business so they can have a monopoly. and you know that's a rare thing in this day and age. sad but true.
Click to expand...
Intel had quite cheap 6 core chips when they were on Nehalem, then they tourned quite all their line on 4 core chips at best for about 10 years when they could have made them bigger and bigger. They also canceled many facilities and extensions. It was easy to imagine for everybody how to beat Intel, only AMD was in no shape to do it, or so people thought.
The guy who killed Intel is not Bob Swan but Brian Krzanich. It's all those years they took the profit but didn't invest as competition did : Samsung, TSMC and even Glofo.
It's also clear that all that couldn't give a damn management started after Andy Grove, foster CEO who helped build Intel, left as senior adviser some years before he died from cancer in 2016. Andy Grove published a book in the 90s : "only paranoid survive". Interesting to notice how right he was.
 
Jandor said:
Intel had quite cheap 6 core chips when they were on Nehalem, then they tourned quite all their line on 4 core chips at best for about 10 years when they could have made them bigger and bigger. They also canceled many facilities and extensions.
Click to expand...

Nehalem was HEDT, and that line continues with more cores than the consumer sockets to this day, including inexpensive options. Intel had no plans to exceed four cores nor release an updated architecture on 14nm -- as they planned to move on to 10nm with eight cores and a new architecture, which has already been proven to be more secure.

Their decisions regarding their path to 10nm has bitten them right in the ass.
 
Mega6 said:
example 1
Plundervolt attacks intel SGX. AMD is not affected. Has noting to do with cache.

A lot of attacks on intel are against speculative execution. AMD has built in checkers in the CPU. Guess who doesn't?

example2
"AMD is aware of new research claiming new speculative execution attacks that may allow access to privileged kernel data. Based on external and internal analysis, AMD believes it is not vulnerable to the SWAPGS variant attacks because AMD products are designed not to speculate on the new GS value following a speculative SWAPGS."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAPGS_(security_vulnerability)


Total CPU vulnerabilities
See the pattern yet? So for those not keeping score..Intel wins. yeah click the links below.

intel - 247

AMD - 16

AMD's CPUs, including the latest Ryzen and Epyc processors, are immune to:

  • Meltdown (Spectre v3)
  • Spectre v3a
  • LazyFPU
  • TLBleed
  • Spectre v1.2
  • L1TF/Foreshadow
  • SPOILER
  • SpectreRSB
  • MDS attacks (ZombieLoad, Fallout, RIDL)
  • SWAPGS
So that directly addresses two points in Intel architecture with links of why and how Intel affected and AMD is not. I'll leave it to you to address the other 245.
Click to expand...
You still don't get it. You are focusing on current known exploits that were targeted toward Intel, not AMD. The ones that effect AMD do so by happenstance because they share that exploitability. When and if AMD gains enough market share among business users, they will come under scrutiy just as Inel has, and more exploits will be found. Again, I am not talking about current known exploits, but the focus on hardware and microcode vunerabilities in general.

You also fail to metion the ASMedia explots that were found on Ryzen that were never addressed by AMD, that I can find. But they were not that important to begin with, because no one uses AMD for cloud service or any other mission critical situations that is not Epyc based.
 
I'm surprised at those who are willing to accept the fact that the entire world is running on one architecture, Skylake, and that the prevalence of vulnerability research focused on Skylake is just a coincidence.

It isn't.

Intel took chances with Skylake because the likelihood of exploitability at the time of design was extremely small, and should have been, had they followed up with their 10nm architecture per their own schedule. Intel knows as well as any security professional that having "perfect" security means no one gets any work done. Perfect security doesn't exist.

So yes, Intel looks pretty bad here, and they should, as anyone does when they lose that bet. However, the bigger point is that they're not unique. Everyone is going to have to be more vigilant about security; it's something that humanity has become lax about in the current time of relative peace, but as we've seen with identity theft up to exposure of state secrets and even international sabotage, security affects everyone.

Right now it's very hard to argue against using AMD in the datacenter. Epyc isn't even really that special; the building blocks are less complex than Intel's best offerings, and as AMD had four or five years of additional security research to pull from academia, at the very least the attack vectors that are manifesting in the public sphere are better accounted for. The same can be said of what we've seen of Intel's architectures that started their own development around the same time. Those just didn't arrive when they should have, and thus Skylake received far more exposure than most architectures ever do.

So the overall point is that there is absolutely zero guarantee that Zen won't be compromised tomorrow. Nor for any other architecture, whether due to an intentional design decision or an errata. Coding secure hardware and software, that is, coding secure computing systems, is just plain hard, and the attacks will never stop coming.
 
vick1000 said:
You still don't get it. You are focusing on current known exploits that were targeted toward Intel, not AMD. The ones that effect AMD do so by happenstance because they share that exploitability.
Click to expand...
You have any proof of that methodology or is that something you pulled out of thin air? Did you read the parts where AMD designed a more secure proc? no. Just completely ignored it.

vick1000 said:
You also fail to metion the ASMedia explots that were found on Ryzen that were never addressed by AMD, that I can find. But they were not that important to begin with, because no one uses AMD for cloud service or any other mission critical situations that is not Epyc based.
Click to expand...
Wow you found something that affects AMD and not intel..Unpatched?

LET'S SEE IT. ASMedia is the responsibility of ASMedia. Show it.

edit: nevermind i found it for you.

CHIMERA - patched. May 3 2019

nice try.

https://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/117839-amd-ships-patches-address-flaws-unearthed-cts-labs/


Regardless -You've just proven my point above then. For ASMedia vulnerabilty, AMD was targeted, not Intel. So you're supposed methodology in the first part that Intel is targeted ONLY is NOT THE CASE. Hackers go for the low hanging fruit - in this case, Intel security is BAD and easy to crack comparatively to AMD. So OF COURSE they are getting hit harder.

You CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. You don't get it.

Why anyone would spend the time to defend such obvious shit intel security is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
Mega6 said:
You have any proof of that methodology or is that something you pulled out of thin air? Did you read the parts where AMD designed a more secure proc? no. Just completely ignored it.
Click to expand...

AMD designed a more secure processor than Skylake -- a large part of that being that they had more up to date research to draw from. Intel has also designed more secure processors than Skylake, because they had the same research to draw from.

AMD isn't special with respect to security.

Mega6 said:
Regardless -You've just proven my point above then. For ASMedia vulnerabilty, AMD was targeted, not Intel. So you're supposed methodology in the first part that Intel is targeted ONLY is NOT THE CASE. Hackers go for the low hanging fruit - in this case, Intel security is BAD and easy to crack comparatively to AMD. So OF COURSE they are getting hit harder.
Click to expand...

AMD has had effectively zero commercial marketshare up until the last year or two. None.

Of course they haven't been targeted, why bother? What infrastructures worth attacking are running AMD?


But you know what they are running?

Skylake. All of them.

Even Intel wasn't prepared for that.

Let's see what happens when AMD gets some marketshare, especially as they're being billed as 'the more secure' option :ROFLMAO:
 
IdiotInCharge said:
AMD designed a more secure processor than Skylake -- a large part of that being that they had more up to date research to draw from. Intel has also designed more secure processors than Skylake, because they had the same research to draw from.

AMD isn't special with respect to security.
Click to expand...

AMD is special with respect to security when compared to Intel.
IdiotInCharge said:
AMD has had effectively zero commercial marketshare up until the last year or two. None.

Of course they haven't been targeted, why bother? What infrastructures worth attacking are running AMD?
Click to expand...

If it was easy, everyone would be hacking AMD. Hackers like EASY. They are NOT because hacking AMD is HARD. your buddy vick1000 has already shown us that where there is way in - regardless of cpu manufacturer - hackers will take it. To fall back on the lame argument that since has overriding server share is ignorant and foolish. Hacker study the architecture and exploit weaknesses. Intel arch security basically sucks comparatively. That's exactly why they are hit over and over. Hackers like easy and intel makes it that way.


IdiotInCharge said:
But you know what they are running?

Skylake. All of them.

Even Intel wasn't prepared for that.

Let's see what happens when AMD gets some marketshare, especially as they're being billed as 'the more secure' option :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

Skylake.. yeah it sucks.

side channel attacks

Zombieload affects Skylake. JCC affects Skylake. Skylake, more of the same.

https://www.kitguru.net/components/...ade-lake-and-skylake-cpus/?PageSpeed=noscript

No wonder Epyc is such a hit. Peace of mind.
 
Mega6 said:
You have any proof of that methodology or is that something you pulled out of thin air? Did you read the parts where AMD designed a more secure proc? no. Just completely ignored it.


Wow you found something that affects AMD and not intel..Unpatched?

LET'S SEE IT. ASMedia is the responsibility of ASMedia. Show it.

edit: nevermind i found it for you.

CHIMERA - patched. May 3 2019

nice try.

https://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/117839-amd-ships-patches-address-flaws-unearthed-cts-labs/


Regardless -You've just proven my point above then. For ASMedia vulnerabilty, AMD was targeted, not Intel. So you're supposed methodology in the first part that Intel is targeted ONLY is NOT THE CASE. Hackers go for the low hanging fruit - in this case, Intel security is BAD and easy to crack comparatively to AMD. So OF COURSE they are getting hit harder.

You CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. You don't get it.

Why anyone would spend the time to defend such obvious shit intel security is beyond me.
Click to expand...
Your reading comprehension and information digestion capabilities are severely lacking. The article you posted has no information on a patch for AMD systems besides a headline. I wanted to build an APU system last year, so I waited for a mitigation and searched for it, but it's like it never happened. See if you can find it, I could not...

https://www.amd.com/en/corporate/product-security

Granted I stopped looking last year. The ASMedia thing is an AMD issue, because of how AMD used their chips and properties on all of their motherboard specs provided to the vendors, you could not get a board without the ASMedia assets on it. Again you miss the ORIGINAL point, and that is AMD is not more secure, just because all exploits designed for Intel do not effect them. That's like saying because I live in an area with no crime, and the chances my home would be broken into are non-existant, that my home is more secure than one in downtown Detroit. "Hackers" did not find these exploits, security frims found them, and they work on market drivers, Intel is the sole market driver. That's probably why Intel paid CTS to find some AMD exploits, so AMD could not use security as a marketing pont. Also, how am I defending Intel security by stating AMD would have as many flaws if under the same amont of scrutiny?

Let me reiderate, this new focus on hardware and micro code exploits is a concern to me, it's a paradigm shift in data security and privacy, and can only get worse. I am not a fanboy of any company, and I am glad AMD is back in the game. My first four real DIY rigs were AMD, and it was not until the Core 2 Quad series that I jumped ship. Also, I was looking to upgrade from my i7 2600K to a Ryzen 2, but the 9600K was on sale for $199, and I got it with a Z390 for $279 in a combo.
 
Last edited:
vick1000 said:
Your reading comprehension and information digestion capabilities are severely lacking. The article you posted has no information on a patch for AMD systems besides a headline. I wanted to build an APU system last year, so I waited for a mitigation and searched for it, but it's like it never happened. See if you can find it, I could not...

https://www.amd.com/en/corporate/product-security

Granted I stopped looking last year. The ASMedia thing is an AMD issue, because of how AMD used their chips and properties on all of their motherboard specs provided to the vendors, you could not get a board without the ASMedia assets on it. Again you miss the ORIGINAL point, and that is AMD is not more secure, just because all exploits designed for Intel do not effect them. That's like saying because I live in an area with no crime, and the chances my home would be broken into are non-existant, that my home is more secure than one in downtown Detroit. "Hackers" did not find these exploits, security frims found them, and they work on market drivers, Intel is the sole market driver. That's probably why Intel paid CTS to find some AMD exploits, so AMD could not use security as a marketing pont. Also, how am I defending Intel security by stating AMD would have as many flaws if under the same amont of scrutiny?

Let me reiderate, this new focus on hardware and micro code exploits is a concern to me, it's a paradigm shift in data security and privacy, and can only get worse. I am not a fanboy of any company, and I am glad AMD is back in the game. My first four real DIY rigs were AMD, and it was not until the Core 2 Quad series that I jumped ship.
Click to expand...

learn how to search. It is patched. I’m not your it admin. The “same amount of scrutiny” argument is fabricated out of thin air and without merit. You make claims and provide no evidence. Your arguments are a joke. Any technical person understands that Amd has built a more secure cpu architecture than Intel’s releases. I’ve shown examples with references. I even had to find the vulnerability on Amd that you mention FOR YOU. You have nothing but hot air and conjecture. Funny how you have to give example after example to declare how “neutral” you are, yet seem to have a big bone to pick or simple lack of comprehension.
 
Last edited:
Mega6 said:
learn how to search. It is patched. I’m not your it admin. The “same amount of scrutiny” argument is fabricated out of thin air and without merit. You make claims and provide no evidence. Your arguments are a joke. Any technical person understands that Amd has built a more secure cpu architecture than Intel’s releases. I’ve shown examples with references. I even had to find the vulnerability on Amd that you mention FOR YOU. You have nothing but hot air and conjecture. Funny how you have to give example after example to declare how “neutral” you are, yet seem to have a big bone to pick or simple lack of comprehension.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure I know how to search the web, AMD's own website has nothing listed as mitigations for the series that CTS discovered. A few headlines that state it's patched, only show that AMD planned to patch it, as in showing a slide of AMD's press release about two weeks after the revealation of the exploits. Everything else found is accurate reporting that AMD "is working on" a fix, or a fix is "coming soon". And I never asked you to find promises from AMD for me, certainly not what you provided, because it's just a misleading headline.

If you cannot understand the difference between something bieng targeted and something that enjoys relative obscurity, there is no helping you. All of your examples are exploits that were found by targeting Intel systems, none of them were targeted at AMD, yet you and AMD tout that as an example of bieng more secure. That is the joke here. So what do you "have" besides hot air? You should simply state AMD does not use the same micro code as Intel, thus they are uneffected by most Intel vunerabilities targeted toward Intel. The fact is we don't know how secure AMD is over Intel, if at all, because no one is targeting AMD, at all, except CTS which found four AMD exclusive exploits in a short time period.

It's the same foolish mentality of people that think Apple software is moe secure than Microsoft. Anyone that truly understand computing, should know NO SYSTEM is secure when the attacker is targeting it. AMD, just like Apple, enjoys relative obscurity, not better security. Your blind fanboyism and ignorance of the industry will not change that fact.

If you are so sure - Then you don't fundamentally understand the differences between Intel and AMD CPU architecture
Click to expand...
No discussion of architecture or micro code in this article, just what we already knew, exploits found using Intel hardware mostly effect Intel.

See the pattern yet? So for those not keeping score..Intel wins. yeah click the links below.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly what I am saying. Intel was/is targeted.

Did you read the parts where AMD designed a more secure proc?
Click to expand...
I read the authors opinion, which is sinilar to yours, and also incorrect.

LET'S SEE IT. ASMedia is the responsibility of ASMedia
Click to expand...
Nope, AMD implemented a third party solution.

AMD was targeted, not Intel. So you're supposed methodology in the first part that Intel is targeted ONLY is NOT THE CASE
Click to expand...
Nope, CTS was the only firm, and they had alterior motives.

Why anyone would spend the time to defend such obvious shit intel security is beyond me.
Click to expand...
No one is defending Intel here, you are confused, blinded by ignorance and anger, or just an idiot.

If it was easy, everyone would be hacking AMD. Hackers like EASY
Click to expand...
Spoken like a true noob. "Hackers" have three motivations, none of which are what is easy. Money, politics, or a challenge. And I never said it would be easy, remove the scales from you eyes. A hacker going after AMD micro code would be like a thief picking the lock on a garbage dump, a waste of time.
 
vick1000 said:
I'm pretty sure I know how to search the web, AMD's own website has nothing listed as mitigations for the series that CTS discovered. A few headlines that state it's patched, only show that AMD planned to patch it, as in showing a slide of AMD's press release about two weeks after the revealation of the exploits. Everything else found is accurate reporting that AMD "is working on" a fix, or a fix is "coming soon". And I never asked you to find promises from AMD for me, certainly not what you provided, because it's just a misleading headline.
Click to expand...

The patches are bios updates through vendors.

"AMD was contacted by Tom’s Hardware directly to check on progress. An answer came back as follows: “Within approximately 30 days of being notified by CTS Labs, AMD released patches to our ecosystem partners mitigating all of the CTS identified vulnerabilities on our Epyc platform as well as patches mitigating Chimera across all AMD platforms.” In addition AMD noted that the patches were in the final testing phase with ecosystem partners ahead of public distribution." May 3, 2019

The motherboard vendors have rolled this in to the bios updates.

"all patches to arrive via AMD’s ODM and OEM partners within the next 90 days."

also - "risk was minimal, as to exploit these vulnerabilities, an attacker would first need to have administrator access to the system. As Mark Papermaster, AMD’s CTO, points out, attackers with this kind of access would have numerous attack mechanisms at their disposal to delete, create or modify any file on the system, without the need to exploit these vulnerabilities."

So it is a WASTE OF TIME ANYWAYS to try this attack vector. This is pretty much the same with all the CTS attacks. REQUIRE ADMIN ACCESS. In that case, you have everything already.

CTS is the only company that tried to attack AMD CPUs? That is foolish and naive. If that was the case, guess how many CPU vulnerabilities AMD would have? NONE. LOL

vick1000 said:
If you cannot understand the difference between something bieng targeted and something that enjoys relative obscurity, there is no helping you. All of your examples are exploits that were found by targeting Intel systems, none of them were targeted at AMD, yet you and AMD tout that as an example of bieng more secure. That is the joke here. So what do you "have" besides hot air? You should simply state AMD does not use the same micro code as Intel, thus they are uneffected by most Intel vunerabilities targeted toward Intel. The fact is we don't know how secure AMD is over Intel, if at all, because no one is targeting AMD, at all, except CTS which found four AMD exclusive exploits in a short time period.

It's the same foolish mentality of people that think Apple software is moe secure than Microsoft. Anyone that truly understand computing, should know NO SYSTEM is secure when the attacker is targeting it. AMD, just like Apple, enjoys relative obscurity, not better security. Your blind fanboyism and ignorance of the industry will not change that fact.
Click to expand...

The reason AMD is not affected by all those vulnerabilities is BECAUSE of a superior Security Architecture.

Hiding your argument behind Intel's market popularity is lame. And guess what? - going after AMD ONLY is EXACTLY what CTS did. So, Intel is targeted, cry. AMD targeted - oh only CTS? Nope. They are the only ones that found anything. Who mentions something they didn't find?

Again, you have proven yourself wrong. You've gone from hacking AMD pointless to ok, just CTS. Keep morphing your arguments.

Hackers will go after ANYTHING - even just to say they can do it. Saying they ignore Apple or AMD because of market share is idiocy.

ARCHITECTURE
Blatantly dismissing the facts presented only is a convenience to yourself. I have already mentioned checkers in the cpu to mitigate one attack vector on AMD and another SWAPGS in post 29.

Guess what? I typed this all on a 3930k so there's that.

Condescending attitude, fanboy flag, you show real character with your trolling comments.
 
Last edited:
Lord have mercy. That quote was from an article in May of 2018, and it simply repeats hearsay from Tom's Hardware that they were told. That's what you are basing your assumption on, the article itself only implies patches are bieng worked on. I have found nothing to verify this claim that patches were sent and tested as per typical procedures in cases like this, where third parties varify the claims of mitigation. If you can find evidence of this, I recend my claims. You obviiously know nothing about this industry, nore it's enemies. CTS was the only documented case where a firm went after AMD, and they were succesful to a point, their motives not withstanding.

Regardless of AMD's situatioin, the FIRMS that released the Intel exploits do not test AMD hardware as far as I know, and these are the FIRMS that are finding them, not "hackers". In any case, the vast majority of exploits are used to aquire data, not "hack" anything in the traditional sense. The concerns we have are with large scale deployment of exploited systems bieng mined, not some radom prankster looking for thrills or clout. These are large scale communities located mostly in the far eastern regions, and are not concerned with your home PC. Thus the focus is directed toward Intel based systems running Unix or the like, not anything with AMD hardware.

I don't know what you mean by morphing my arguments. My point has remained the same, AMD is not targeted due to a vastly inferior deplyoment ratio. How hard is that to understand? I am not defending Intel, or attacking AMD, simply making a point that some people, yourself obviouisly, are under the delusion that AMD is "more secure" than Intel. Don't delude yourself, into thinking otherwise. Simply because some exploits found while researching Intel systems do not effect AMD systems, you think AMD is better? Remove your blinders.
 
vick1000 said:
Lord have mercy. That quote was from an article in May of 2018, and it simply repeats hearsay from Tom's Hardware that they were told. That's what you are basing your assumption on, the article itself only implies patches are bieng worked on. I have found nothing to verify this claim that patches were sent and tested as per typical procedures in cases like this, where third parties varify the claims of mitigation. If you can find evidence of this, I recend my claims. You obviiously know nothing about this industry, nore it's enemies. CTS was the only documented case where a firm went after AMD, and they were succesful to a point, their motives not withstanding.
Click to expand...

When's the last time a hacker had admin on your box and then decides to hack the bios? It is a nothing burger.
Let's work together, you track down these 247 and I'll work on the other 16.

Just remember this:
CTS Exploitation requirements

  • All exploits require the ability to run an executable as admin (no physical access is required)
  • MASTERKEY additionally requires issuing a BIOS update + reboot
If some hacker, mysterious fucking "eastern exploit community" or whatever you want to call it has admin on your box - you have bigger problems. These CTS hacks are fucking stupid. The truth is you are harping on nothing.


vick1000 said:
Regardless of AMD's situatioin, the FIRMS that released the Intel exploits do not test AMD hardware as far as I know,
Click to expand...

"as far as I know"

So your not a professional exploiter and are just guessing on what they are doing and the methodology. There we are morphing from "nobody hacks AMD, Apple - just Intel" to "as far as I know". How much do you know about these mysterious "eastern region exploit communities"?

vick1000 said:
I don't know what you mean by morphing my arguments.
Click to expand...
See your "morphing" again as commented above

vick1000 said:
AMD is not targeted due to a vastly inferior deplyoment ratio.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't consider 7% server share and rising quickly as negligible.

vick1000 said:
I am not defending Intel, or attacking AMD, simply making a point that some people, yourself obviouisly, are under the delusion that AMD is "more secure" than Intel. Don't delude yourself, into thinking otherwise. Simply because some exploits found while researching Intel systems do not effect AMD systems, you think AMD is better? Remove your blinders.
Click to expand...
You are the one deluded. The math is there - 16 to 247. It's called probability and a broken architecture vs a newer more secure architecture.

Why do you thing THIS OCCURRED? Blind Luck? No. Because Intel is attacked more? WRONG. If that was the case - at least some these would work on AMD CPUs but the DON'T. These are Attack Vectors. VENDOR AGNOSTIC. SWAPGS "can" occur on any any CPU with speculative cache. This is "speculative cache exploitation". Intel speculation is horrible. AMD is immune because of a better architectural decision. Clear? Better, more secure architecture. Intel can't fix that. They can only patch each issue one by one. Meanwhile its a dead end on AMD. Get where we are going yet?

Btw- the asmedia bug you mentioned also affects intel.

INTEL -> chase chase chase the bug, patch patch patch the current issue
AMD -> build with security in mind FIRST at the design level. Immune.

AMD's CPUs, including the latest Ryzen and Epyc processors, are immune to:

  • Meltdown (Spectre v3)
  • Spectre v3a
  • LazyFPU
  • TLBleed
  • Spectre v1.2
  • L1TF/Foreshadow
  • SPOILER
  • SpectreRSB
  • MDS attacks (ZombieLoad, Fallout, RIDL)
  • SWAPGS

I'm not saying AMD is perfect, far from it - but it's a hell of a lot better knowing that is a much more secure design from the ground up. Intel will just have to live with new exploits by the dozens until they get a completely redesigned new architecture. Built off security first.

nice to see you’ve matured since your last few posts. What happened?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top