Allow me to summarize x86 side channel attacks: Spectre v1: speculation is insecure by design Spectre v2: secure branch prediction matters Meltdown: Intel are dumbasses L1TF: Intel are monumental, inexcusable dumbasses PortSmash: hyperthreading is insecure by design
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @marcan42
Are you sure it's not "Intel sacrifices security for performance and hopes nobody notices"? On second thought, that's just a more specific case of "monumental, inexcusable dumbasses", isn't it?
1 reply 0 retweets 14 likes -
Replying to @roothorick
L1TF and Meltdown were caused by Intel not adding a bunch of AND gates into their CPU. I guess they saved some picoseconds in a critical path somewhere by not doing that? I think it's a cultural issue (not considering side channel security AT ALL).
1 reply 2 retweets 27 likes -
Replying to @marcan42
Probably more saved precious silicon space for something else, more aggressive/smarter prediction maybe. But now I'm just blindly speculating.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
~64 AND gates are not going to save them any significant silicon space. If they *explicitly* chose not to add them for performance, they're idiots. I think it's more likely they had an implicit culture of not considering the security implications at all.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.