On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 17:47:42 +
"Lux, Jim (337K)" wrote:
> I should think that in a "dedicated cluster" application, these sorts
> of security problems are less of an issue
Well I sure don't like the idea of random_flow_app.x reading our
slurm/munge secrets for latter convenient usage of resou
Meaning:
AMD would also be on the same hook;
We, "non-average computer users", are still [verb of your choice here].
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:29 PM, Kevin Van Workum wrote:
> Intel's response: https://www.streetinsider.com/
> Corporate+News/Intel+%28INTC%29+Responds+to+Security+
> Research+Fin
Intel's response:
https://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/Intel+%28INTC%29+Responds+to+Security+Research+Findings/13648696.html
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Joe Landman wrote:
> Looks like it will respond to a 'nopti' boot option (at least the patches
> I've seen from 4-Dec)
>
>
>
> On
Looks like it will respond to a 'nopti' boot option (at least the
patches I've seen from 4-Dec)
On 01/03/2018 12:57 PM, Ellis H. Wilson III wrote:
On 01/03/2018 12:47 PM, Lux, Jim (337K) wrote:
I suppose the down side is that if they do kernel mods to fix this
for the 99.9%, it adversely aff
On 01/03/2018 12:47 PM, Lux, Jim (337K) wrote:
I suppose the down side is that if they do kernel mods to fix this
for the 99.9%, it adversely affects the performance for the 0.1%
(that is, us).
We've been discussing this extensively at my workplace, and the
overwhelming expectation is that at
I should think that in a "dedicated cluster" application, these sorts of
security problems are less of an issue - whether a process can figure out what
memory space other processes are in is more of an issue for machines "open to
the world with heterogeneous applications" (i.e. 99.9% of the mach
I am henceforth renaming my datacentre the “magical informatics cupboard”
Tim
On 03/01/2018, 15:58, "Beowulf on behalf of Lawrence Stewart"
wrote:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/03/nvidia_server_gpus/
Of course you cannot use our less expensive hardware for whatever you wan
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/03/nvidia_server_gpus/
Of course you cannot use our less expensive hardware for whatever you want!
Beacuse it includes proprietary software, we can ex-post-facto forbid you from
using the thing you paid for any way you want.
Looks like Stallman was right a
On 03/01/18 19:46, John Hearns via Beowulf wrote:
I guess the phrase "to some extent" is the vital one here. Are there
any security exploits which use this information?
It's more the fact that it reduces/negates the protection that existing
kernel address space randomisation gives you, the ide
Hi,
I renamed that thread because IMHO there is a another issue related to that
threat.
Should we upgrade our system and lost a significant amount of XFlops... ?
What should be consider : - the risk - your user population (size / type /
average "knowledge" of hacking techs...) - the isolatio
The origin of the story is from here
http://pythonsweetness.tumblr.com/post/169166980422/the-mysterious-case-of-the-linux-page-table
L.
--
"The antidote to apocalypticism is *apocalyptic civics*. Apocalyptic civics
is the insistence that we cannot ignore the truth, nor should we panic
about
Thanks Chris. In the past there have been Intel CPU 'bugs' trumpeted, but
generally these are fixed with a microcode update.
This looks different, as it is a fundamental part of the chips architecture.
However the Register article says: "It allows normal user programs – to
discern to some extent t
12 matches
Mail list logo
