Oh no.

  • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    this vulnerability is only really meaningful on multi-user systems

    Well, that says it all. CPU manufacturers have no incentive at all to secure the computations of multiple users on a single CPU (or cores on the same die)… why would they? They make more cash if everyone has to buy their own complete unit, and they can outsource security issues to ‘the network’ or ‘the cloud’…

    Years ago when I was in University this would have been a deathblow to the entire product line, as multi-user systems were the norm. Students logged into the same machines to do their assignments, employees logged into the same company servers for daily tasks.

    I guess that isn’t such a thing any more. But wow, what a sh*tshow modern CPU architecture has become, if concern for performance has completely overridden proper process isolation and security. We can’t even trust that a few different users on the same machine can be separated properly due to the design of the CPU itself?

    • El Barto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not happy with what’s happening and I know that corporations are money making evil machines.

      But to say that chip makers have no incentive at all to secure their hardware is quite the hyperbole.

      • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fair enough, probably was hyperbole :) But performance does seem to be a higher priority than security; they can always spin PR after the next exploit, after all, users already have the CPU in their system, they’ve made their money; what are users really gonna do if an issue comes up after they’ve bought their box?

          • whoareu@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, but we live in cpu monopoly. Intel and Amd Both companies put backdoors and all sort of shit in their cpus.

              • Kodemystic@lemmy.kodemystic.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Im out of the loop with those. Are Arm and socs viable alternative for home computing?

                Last time I checked I could not build a pc with Arm. Post above is right intel and amd are dominating home user market.

                I have a macbook air m1 and this arm chips is imo just amazing. No fan no issues, fast as fuck. Id like to build a pc with arm. Maybe when Linux and windows show more support for arm64?

                • dack@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Linux supports ARM64 very well. Windows also has had ARM support for a quite a while. The main obstacles are 3rd party binary software (particularly on Windows) and lack of available hardware.

    • Eggymatrix@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are you aware that the majority of cpus sold today go to cloud computing? Believe it or not, but that is an application space with multiple users on the same machine.

      • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Even on a single user machine, multiple users are very much a thing. Even Apple has left behind the DOS-like architecture where everything runs with the same rights. All current systems run with multiple concurrent users, notably root (or the Windows equivalent) and the keyboard operator (as well as dedicated ones for the various services, although that’s maybe more a thing in Unix/Linux than Windows).

      • Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Good point. But I think performance is still a greater priority for those who make purchasing decisions, rather than basic security, and that’s the problem.

        • towerful@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not at the enterprise level.
          Security means compliance, which means getting/keeping contracts and not getting sued.
          And they care more about performance-per-watt and density.

    • philluminati@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Processor manufacturers target their devices and sales towards cloud computing so they have a huge incentive to avoid having issues like these. It’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re reading an awful lot into what I said that wasn’t put in there.

      There’s nothing wrong with multi-user systems existing, there’s plenty of use for such things. This bug is really bad for those sorts of things. I was explicitly and specifically talking about consumer gaming computers, which are generally single-user machines. Concern for performance is a very real and normal thing on a gaming computer, it’s not some kind of weird plot. An actual multi-user system would obviously need to be patched.

    • Square Singer@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      I am so incredibly happy that those terrible multi-user systems are a thing of the past. Multiple seconds wait time for every mouse click are no fun.

      • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hey! I’ll have you know that a 68000 based server was good enough for about 60 users running X11 desktops back in the day!

        Kids today with their vodoo cards and whatnot.

        • Square Singer@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          When I was in university, they were probably running the same server, but with Ubuntu and for 500 sessions at the same time. That crap was totally unusable.