Slashdot Mirror
Flaws In Intel Processors Quietly Patched
Nom du Keyboard writes "According to this article in The Inquirer and this Microsoft Knowledge Base article, a fix for some significant problems in many of Intel's most recent processors has been quietly released — by whom is not clear. Patches are available on Microsoft's site. Affected processors include Core 2 Duo E4000/E6000, Core 2 Quad Q6600, Core 2 Xtreme X6800, XC6700, and XC6800. Details on just what has been fixed are scanty (it's called a 'reliability update'), however, it's probably more important than either Intel or Microsoft is openly admitting." There is no indication that Apple users are affected.
There is no indication that Apple users are affected.
What, magical pixie faries fixed the Intels in Macs? How could they not be affected?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Uhh, you can flash the CPU Microcode from within a Microsoft OS?!? [Other than DOS?!?]
Wouldn't this pose like the Mother of All Possible Challenges to the Black Hat community - how to right a worm that could flash CPU's, thereby rendering nearly limitless power over every possible sandboxing or anti-virus countermeasure?
Kinda the Helen of Troy [or Anne Boleyn] of Hax0r/Crax0r Wet Dreams?
Seriously - how can you hope to maintain the illusion of Virtual Machines if you can write to the microcode?
What worries me is the idea of Microsoft Update mucking with the processor in the first place. And what is Genuine Disadvantage going to think of patching a non-Microsoft product anyway?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
How could this not affect Intel Macs? They use the same machine instructions that everyone else does!
Question is, how come you patch microcode hardware flaw with a software patch - is this affecting performance? Possibly.
About the Macs not being affected: that was funny. Given how secretive the MS/Intel patches are, and we know Apple is totally open about stuff like that, right?
After reading this thread its amazing to me how many Slashdot readers don't know how microcode works, making broad statements about how patching a processor is impossible without an EEPROM burner, or using a DOS boot disk.
What's up with the Moderators? I constantly see posts that say the exact opposite thing both modded Informative or Insightful. We need a category "Incorrect". If the Moderators don't know the correct answer they should refrain from moderating either Insightful or Informative. It may be informing but the post is informing people with incorrect information.
It's not like windows couldn't mess with your machine anyway. If you don't trust your operating system, how can you trust your whole system.
Of Code And Men
And given that I have no evidence either way, it must be the fairies. What kind of an argument is that? If they were being so secretive to hide the nature of the patches, why would they go and label them in the fricking file names?
Isn't it more plausible that the file names have the word "genuine" in them because like many patches, they're only available to activated windows boxes, and that it's just some random bug in the microcode being fixed?
I think you've had the tinfoil hat on a little bit too long.
Normally a microcode update is flashed into the motherboard with a BIOS update. That is damn close to being the same thing. Not too many people upgrade their BIOS, and fewer still would consider downgrading. Not too many people replace motherboards separately from CPUs, especially these days with a new CPU socket shape being invented every other day.
The FDIV bug and associated fallout shortly preceded Intel's introduction of the microcode update facility. I don't think the two issues are unrelated.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Intel has a microcode update architecture. Basically, you can patch the CPU microcode into RAM on the CPU. It's been around since the Pentium bug that caused a recall.