Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Intel x86 Considered Harmful

posted by martyb on Friday October 30 2015, @01:52PM   Printer-friendly
from the users-are-up-in-ARMs dept.

canopic jug writes:

Joanna Rutkowska's blog points to recent paper on a survey of the various problems and attacks presented against the x86 platform over the last 10 years. The paper does not present new exploits but does cover: the BIOS (UEFI) and booting; peripherals; the Intel Management Engine; and several other aspects of x86 insecurity. Some of the problems appear insurmountable as described.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Intel x86 Considered Harmful | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 33 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 30 2015, @02:59PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 30 2015, @02:59PM (#256487)

    UltraSPARC IV. "IV Ever."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraSPARC_IV [wikipedia.org]

    Too bad that whole line is trapped in the dungeons of Oracle/Mordor.

  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 30 2015, @03:24PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 30 2015, @03:24PM (#256498)

    Oracle/Mordor

    Mordoracle?

  • (Score: 2) by turgid on Friday October 30 2015, @07:04PM

    by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 30 2015, @07:04PM (#256610) Journal

    Sun open sourced a lot of the SPARC design so anyone can use it if they want. UltraSPARC IV was very late and therefore slow. It's replacement, project Millennium, was killed in 2005 ie 5 years late and no product. Rock flopped. That's why they went with Niagara (T1) and Fujitsu SPARC64.