Slashdot Mirror
Intel Discloses Three More Chip Flaws (reuters.com)
Intel on Tuesday disclosed three more possible flaws in some of its microprocessors that can be exploited to gain access to certain data from computer memory. From a report: Its commonly used Core and Xeon processors were among the products that were affected, the company said. "We are not aware of reports that any of these methods have been used in real-world exploits, but this further underscores the need for everyone to adhere to security best practices," the company said in a blog post. Intel also released updates to address the issue and said new updates coupled those released earlier in the year will reduce the risk for users, including personal computer clients and data centres. In January, the company came under scrutiny after security researchers disclosed flaws that they said could let hackers steal sensitive information from nearly every modern computing device containing chips from Intel, Advanced Micro Devices and ARM.
Intel realy needs to start cutting prices to keep up with amd.
And on the high end desktop line all cpu needs to max out pci-e lanes. Going as low as 16 is just an joke there.
Someone had to do it.
What percentage drop can we expect to see with the new patches?
what does this have to do with the article except intel is in both?? You IDIOT, you buffoon
Techniques for faster CPUs also have security implications. Who'd a thunk it?
Soon we'll discover that lower power run modes also have security implications.
Brad and Jen, on the cover of a magazine -- together.
Oh, by the way, the world ends tomorrow; details at 11, but do you care?
The Reuters article quote Intel's blog: "...this further underscores the need for everyone to adhere to security best practices," the company said in a blog post.
That first best practice would be not buying Intel chips. Glad there's an alternative.
No doubt Intel found out that someone else was going to disclose these flaws, so they got out ahead of it. They're pulling a Rudy here; try to beat the scandal, but then create one with their attempt to deflect responsibility to someone else:
Yeah, Intel. Everyone. Including the folks who have done the worst job of adhering to security best practices... Intel. You guys skipped security checks until after they were necessary to gain a performance advantage over AMD, and now you're trying to deflect attention from that by suggesting that security is someone else's responsibility. But the CPU is the heart of the machine, and you're responsible for deliberately compromising its security for a business advantage.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Sure.
call 202-456-1414 and ask for Donald.
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
See my subject & letting you f yourself dumbass https://it.slashdot.org/commen... you inferior moron.
* Don't try "patronize" me BOY when I can show you are less than ZERO fucker... easily.
APK
P.S.=> Your DIM brains are blatantly inferior evidenced by your FAKE NAMES online for FAKE lives of being "ne'er-do-well" scum having the AUDACITY to even TRY "F" w/ me & ones like you you INFERIOR swine as I cast PEARLS before SWINE like you... apk
https://img.purch.com/amd2-png...
"Robust h/w and s/w ecosystem"
"Robust h/w"
"Robust"
Intel was too cocky about their "robust" ecosystem.
This is not just a backfire... this is a 2 years hw and sw security breach spree.
Intel seems to be having problems again, while AMD is rolling out 2nd Gen Ryzen Threadrippers this week. AMD's got the high-end processor market all to itself, while Intel is revealing that they were never that good as they advertised.
Intel could have had a monopoly if they didn't make the Pentium bug math error. Computers are supposed to be "perfect" at computations, but the Intel bug threw some court cases in the wrong direction. I'm not sure they can be trusted anymore.
Now AMD is rolling out processor changes that were discussed here on Slashdot years ago, and they're off in the speed races and higher core limits. (Intel maxes out at about 6, new Threadripers offer 32 hyperthreaded cores that simulate 64 processors.)
Intel better go back to the drawing boards... they're behind in a game they used to always win.
Did the Microsoft security PR drone contract with Intel for this gem? What heros they will be when they fix the security problem they created! #MAGA
Seems like everybody's leaving a hacker hole in their products these days... are we really safe?
I know that a lot of people want that to happen whether they favour Intel or AMD. If Intel were to cut their prices AMD would probably follow suit and most consumers would be better off.
But does Intel need to do that from their own perspective though?
If you look at their market share the majority of people still appears to go for Intel despite the higher prices.
If my overpriced shit would sell that well, why should I reduce my prices? The same logic seems to apply to nVidia graphics cards.
Things may change in the future as AMDs get more popular across all users. Maybe software developers will optimize better for the quirks that Ryzens have with certain software. Quirks like latency issues, that can weigh down the performance gain from a lot of threads in memory intensive or highly dynamic applications.
But until then Intel can ask for their premium prices and there will be enough people who are willing to pay for that.
Bing Bong Bung. Piece of Shit Inside.
What's in YOUR PC?
And that's why these general types of attacks won't be going away any time, except on specialty processors.
These attacks are based on the fact that some operations are faster than others. To get rid of them, you need to make everything equally slow. Addressing one specific case may make the CPU 10% slower, but there are a hundred timing attacks. 10% slower a hundred times equals ...
The lack of disclosed vulnerabilities does not mean vulnerabilities do not exist.
To think "no news is good news" is not that far from "Security through Obscurity".
A majority of people uses an office suite or a web browser. They don't need many cores nor hyperthreading.
Tell that to the bloated OS that is more interested in keeping itself up to date with eye candy rather than staying out of the way. (prefetch, indexing service, makecab.exe). Tell that to the bloated Office suite where most features are not used yet installed anyway. Most importantly, tell that to the websites that assume more and more processing power just to run scripts that are of no benifit to site visitors. The applications that use the most memory/processing power on every PC I see are the browsers and it doesn't matter which one is used.
Of course one can be really safe. If you hate Intel enough and make it thoroughly clear by rants here in the comments one will be delivered from these evils.
Nobody can get it fucking right. I give up thinking anything will get any better.
Another thing observed in the wild is the lack of i11 n-core chip sets and cpu chips. I think Intel could definitely show some urgency in all these under powered tablet, and phone solutions.
Look at all the unlocked doors! It doesn't matter that the innermost workings of the locks are insecure! #MAGA
I don't threaten vs. a NOBODY
Shut your fucking pie hole you lying sack of shit.
You threaten people all the time and when called on it you hide in the fucking corner and piss yourself.
So come on pussycake post your fucking address
A brief history...
Intel followed the very successful Pentium 3 design with Netburst, a radical new architecture that used a VERY long pipeline in the chase for a 10GHz (eventually) clock. It was terrible, but Intel paid outlets at the time, like Slashdot, to promote it as the second coming of chr-st.
Meanwhile AMD was using its newly aquired team of CPU architects to build the world's first 64-bit compatible x86 chip, and the world's first true dual core x64 chip. And it was fantastic.
No matter how much lies Slashdot et al were paid to say about Netburst, its hopelessness was obvious from day one (who would have guessed an ultra-long-pipeline stunk for this type of application). So after a few generations, Intel went back to the Pentium 3 design, crossed it with AMD's best patents (legal cos of a croos patent agreement between Intel and AMD), and made the Core 2 which today continues as the improved 'core' architecture in Intel's Slylake etc.
What we did not know at the time was that Intel removed hardware memory access tests that a multi-core and or multi-threaded architecture that shares memory resourses must use. These tests are supposed to take the form of "lock and key" where a thread has a 'key' (id number) that must be tested in a 'lock' for any shared memory access. No lock and key means MUCH faster memory access and higher clocks/lower power- curiously EXACTLY those benefits seen over AMD til the release of AMD's Zen (but even then Intel keeps the clock advantage).
Yes today's Intel parts, at best get 5Ghz while AMD's Zen+ is at 4.3 GHz cos of that 'illegal' (in computer science terms) Intel CHEATING. And that cheating is why Intel suffers from the terrible unstoppable exploits that Zen does not.
Buy Intel and you are buying broken by design. Buy AMD's Ryzen and you are getting 'best of class' unless that buggy 0.7 GHz really matters to you.
Tiday Intel compounds its cheating with buying the review methodology used to benchmark AMD products. So AMD just launched a 32-core 64-thread processor and Intel paid the usual suspects to bench only using programs known to use 8-cores or less. Whereas you or I would then run FOUR instances of the benchmark at the same time to actually stress the 32-cores, not one of the review sites even attempted this.
Actually the Linux reviews were different since so many key Linux apps scale to any number of threads. They, of course, showed AMD's new threadripper to be a monster. But the bought and paid for Windows 10 reviews sites all 'wondered' who would want a 32-core part, given that "no windows user ever does more than one thing at a time on their computer". This is Intel's dirty money in play.
PS I use the AMD 8-core 1700 in windows. It is jaw-droppingly awesome. Unlike Intel, you can just have everything working at the same time (and I came from Intel systems where one heavy app means you must close down other heavy apps first). Evey bad word currently said about AMD is financially sponsored by Intel's gigantic PR fund.
Good lord, you can't be serious. The road to silicon nirvana is paved with errata sheets. (And always has been.)
Furthermore, the division bug is a terrible example to bolster your cause, because the algorithm was correct in the first place, and the implementation of the algorithm in digital logic was correct in the first place, and then they dropped a very small stitch in the transfer to silicon layout. Had the stitch been any larger, they would have easily caught it during silicon validation. Hint: on randomized inputs, the bug is only triggered about once in 9 billion cases.
Achieving 100% test coverage for all 3.1 million transistors is non-trivial, especially given the processing power available in 1990 three years before the Pentium was first released (what with cheap-ass PC memory costing $60,000/GB in 1990 dollars; double that for server-grade ECC).
The only shitty thing Intel did in this chapter was try to sweep it under the run after the horse bolted the barn.
And the truth of this is that back then, not a lot of software used the FP unit (most people had previously saved a few bucks by purchasing the 486SX castrato, which lacked the hardware floating point unit altogether, and most development shops pretty much assumed this was the defacto situation on the ground, so integer math was almost always preferred).
It really was true that 90% of the people purchasing these chips were at low risk of any real consequence (the two-frame bump in the night right as you're closing in for the money shot in Falcon 3.0 possibly excepted—Falcon 3.0 was legendary for actually using the hardware floating point unit to actually compute a (mildly degraded) military-calibre flight model back in the 486 era (when nothing else did). The accurate inertial momentum effects when rolling hard simply blew everyone's mind. It was so good, you almost felt it through your feet (if you had been wise enough to invest in the 486DX).
Poof! VERTIGO! VERTIGO! as the conspicuous fourth wall universally present in every kinetic 3-space simulator up until then suddenly vanished without a trace.
There was just no way to point this recall at only those who needed it (proof of a previous 486DX purchase order would have been a not-bad fence; hard to believe if you had previously purchased the 486SX that just now you suddenly gave a shit, though wankers are gonna wank).
So it's either pay to recall 9 processors causing a problem for every 1 processor that really needs to be replaced (at an enormous, globally unproductive expense), or panic and do a fatally stupid PR snow job. Intel picked door #2.
"Daddy, daddy, where does CO2 come from?"
"Well, son, it comes from flushing $500 million worth of almost perfectly good CPUs down the crapper practically unused, and then baking up a fresh set."
Guess what? I'm old as fuck, and still sharp as a tack. So if your asbestos underpants are in any kind of mild disrepair, I'd stick to spinning mythical stories about the 1970s or the 1960s, if I were you.
(Hint: I was already reading the 8008 data sheet to pass the time in my grade eight literature classroom. I would have had to mow my weekends to smithereens to actual own one at the price back in the day—not the very first version from 1972—but right around the time they came up with a simplified version reducing the number of mandatory voltage supplies from -12, +12, +5 to just +5. So even the mid-seventies are not quite free and clear for mythical reconstruction, wherever my lawn is found.)
Nonsense. All they need to do is ensure that all stories in the press blame all CPU chips equally, even when that isn't true.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
..."but this further underscores the need for everyone to adhere to security best practices,"
I.e. Don't use Intel
At least, they don't explo
I'm gonna rip this fuckin' Intel CPU out and install AMD.
I am willing to bet that the NSA planted personnel in Intel. ASIC Engineers that actually were NSA agents. Let's face it, a microprocessor is a powerful device.
If you put purposely design a backdoor, you have access to data...
I believe there are many security flaws that originated by design.
what does this have to do with the article except intel is in both?? You IDIOT, you buffoon
It has everything to do with a consumer faced with a choice between Intel and AMD.
Intel processors are disproportionately susceptible to security problems.
16 lanes is woefully inadequate. Single graphics card by itself would consume all of them.
Lack of ECC.
AMD is a no brainer at this point.
Nah! they will be fine, they have the power to do anything, they keep selling faulty products as top-notch, seriously, all those cores and speeds and they all end running the same windows at the same slow speed, they even managed to make the whole world to swallow windows 10 with their lack of drivers for Windows 7 and 8.
In my workplace everything is Intel, but personally I use AMD because is the same but at least is cheaper.
Does AMD support ECC? Or any other manufacturer? I thought the prevailing view was that it is far better to suffer the occasional catastrophic crash or data corruption, rather than pay a few dollars more for reliable RAM.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
It (whataboutismish red herrings) appears to be the most powerful information warfare tool there is in these times and also works wonders here in political slashdot articles. You can see it as a mirror of the mental capabilities of your average slashdot commenter. Don't expect it to work any different in articles about science and technology.
I am APK the great "LORD of HOSTS", a.k.a. AlecStaar from ArsTechnica or Alexander Peter Kowalski.
See subject & APK Hosts File Engine 2.0++ 64-bit for Linux h t t p : / / I . a m . a . f u c k i n g / a s s h o l e . r e t a r d . z i p (remove spaces between characters & download).
I am the godlike creator of various GUI front-ends for other people's configuration files.
I think only one person stalks me as I shitpost and I dusted them on another site but in reality I am widely hated all.
When people state the truth about me I get really mad and accuse them of projecting which is something I do all the time.
Don't call me out on anything as I will state that you are a webmaster and that I cut off your revenue stream.
You must be conspiring with the Jews and Soros if you disagree with me.
Mistaking mockery and parody for impersonation is how I think people flatter me because I can't possibly understand that they detest me.
See me lash out at one person for 2 weeks straight and claim everyone who mocks my retarded ass is actually them.
Bask in my greatness as I post my advertisements in discussions where they don't belong, by the way this is every discussion I post in.
I demand your age sex and location so that I can threaten to show up and kick your ass and will call you a pussycake but am actually too scared to actually do anything but be a keyboard warrior.
Watch as I claim I am world class and a winner but in reality I am a fucking loser.
Witness my descent into madness
APK
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I do not recall seeing this many security problems cropping up over the last 30 years when it came to processors. Is this new or is Intel now having to deal with all the corners they have been cutting to gain an advantage?
Most likely a combination of the two. With cloud computing being all the rage and with more sophisticated OS security (at least for mainstream desktop use) researchers and government agencies have started to focus more on exploiting issues in hardware, whether it be with the physical design of the hardware or the firmware that runs directly from flash.
AMD is a no brainer at this point.
I totally agree... intel is nose diving fast! I would love to see AMD succeed so I have no problem with intel dropping the ball, again and again and..
Does anyone even have COUNT of the current number of intel flaws at this point?
Adding all those back doors for the various governments had to cost something, didn't it ? A few are now being found; I'm sure others are waiting in the wings. I suspect not all of these "mistakes" really are. For instance, why do we need another processor running an entirely different instruction set embedded inside a cpu ?
IMPERSONATING ME AGAIN? Please - GROW UP, get on topic & get a life! Trying to make me "look bad" since you know you're a piece of do-nothing "ne'er-do-well" SHIT isn't helping your cause dumbass. You're playing BITCH games.
* You're a loser - no help exist for YOU or "your kind"...
(... & you KNOW it).
APK
P.S.=> You keep proving that to all reading in fact... apk
See subject: You're going to start w/ an approximately 16mb hosts file off the data my program initally gets you & grow from there.
HOWEVER: Some of the coding I do DOES help on that account e.g. using small/short int var size (hosts lines don't exceed 255 length) so it runs FASTER processing hosts file blocking (or speedup in favorite sites @ TOP of hosts avoiding DNS & its security issues + slower resolution speeds) keeping the data processing OUT of slower cache levels + global heap ram (slower vs. L1/L2/L3/L4 caches) while it's working.
A secondary check I do vs. merged files NOT being processed 1st by my program's false positives & illegal tld/gtld data helps too (program actually finishes in ~7 min otherwise) vs. garbage bloat in hosts AND vs. "bushwhacking" by an interloper using an attack like this.
APK
P.S.=> That takes up to 20++ minutes more on that secondary check - but worth it - I will take ACCURACY over SPEED anytime... apk
ShortString use = another thing that helps in this area too (per the 255 length hosts data use vs. std. larger STRING type) for the same reasons (along w/ using smallint/shortint vs. integer data types in code), for speed/efficiency.
APK
P.S.=> Sorry - still having a.m. coffee folks - minus it, I just don't function as accurately, lol... apk
Until then, *shrug*. These vulnerabilities are coming too fast with too little context to understand how they will impact security operations. I see a flood of articles crowing about the dangers of these issues, yet honestly, I haven't seen much real world impact. Maybe it's because I don't interact with desktop users or run untrusted javascript, I dunno. However, I just wish every security advisory had a nutritional information section where they had to admit "No, we still can't figure out how to make this into a remote root vulnerability for OpenSSH." and if it actually was weaponized at all or even had the potential for that. If you watched the torrent of speculative execution and SIMD bugs come out lately, you'd think the only secure IT device was a mechanical typewriter. Also, AMD hasn't been immune, they've just had fewer issues than Intel. That's not saying a whole lot and I agree with others who speculate they just haven't all been found, yet.
Khyber STALKS me by AC again & ALWAYS SAYS "Lying Sack of Shit" (not to me always either ala e.g.) https://slashdot.org/comments.... https://slashdot.org/comments.... https://slashdot.org/comments....
YOU MADE A HUGE MISTAKE THREATENING ME HERE Khyber https://slashdot.org/comments....
&
ANYONE I merely addressed in TURN when DIRECTED @ me 1st in violence by UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous you use STALKING ME? Isn't threatening ANYONE real, period.
(That is, UNLESS your name is "Anonymous Coward" on your birth certificate stupid & it isn't...)
APK
P.S.=> Khyber CAUGHT RED-HANDED "defending himself" by ANONYMOUS COWARD here too https://slashdot.org/comments.... ? Please, lol... apk
See subject: IF you're trying to make ME "look bad" you're only doing it to yourself & PROVING you wish you were me (imitation = sincerest form of flattery but YOU = POOR IMITATION).
APK
P.S.=> Grow up you psycho loser... apk
1st: You're NOT me (but wish you were) & I'm NOT here to win a "popularity contest": I'm here to WIN so EVERYONE DOES & be faster/safer/more reliably connected online.
Your CRAP's what I PUT UP W/ if one's "World-Class" (like ME): STALKERS stalking u by UNIDENTIFIABLE ac (everyone sees it happening & I suspect it's INFERIOR competitors, webmasters & advertisers (mostly) & malware makers (as my hosts engine affects 'em adversely & gives users of it more SPEED/SECURITY/RELIABILITY & more anonymity online)).
Plus, since you say so? My "portrait" https://365songsblog.files.wor... (lol) so
* Satan GET THEE BEHIND ME!
APK
P.S.=> 3 things show I do it right:
1st = User praise my hosts engine https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...
2nd "ATTACKS" I GET (from UNIDENTIFIABLE ac as Elon Musk got https://tech.slashdot.org/stor... )
3rd BEING IMITATED = "Imitation = sincerest form of flattery" https://linux.slashdot.org/com... ... apk
1 thing my code does to protect itself? Is check it's size (what loads into RAM to run) vs. alteration in all procs/functions (~80 in total iirc) so in a way, you MAY be right!
* I haven't read the FULL problem here - but from this quote âoeThe main promise of SGX is that you can write code, and ship it to someone you do not fully trust. That person will run the code inside SGX on their machine, and you can see that whatever they run there is protected, because you know they haven't modified your code, they haven't accessed the data that your code used.â Seems I already MAY protect against it PER ABOVE from ME @ START OF MY POST (SOURCE https://www.theregister.co.uk/... )
APK
P.S.=> In addition to this (for speed/efficiency) in my code https://it.slashdot.org/commen... also... apk
That has to be one of the dumbest security measures ever. Then again it is from one of the dumbest "security experts" ever so we should have expected as much. Maybe you can tell us about how hosts provides port filtering capabilities, or about the stupid idea you submitted to ultra defrag that they rejected.
I've thought about giving you my name and address, just so when you come and find me, the authorities can make sure you're being monitored and on the appropriate sex offenders list and what not.
I find it so hard to understand your ramblings, I think you'd fail a Turing test as not being detected as a real person.
See subject: It's what 99% of ISP DNS can have happen to 'em as they're not patched vs. kaminsky redirect flaw & 7-20 min. I take keeps me safe from HOURS of malware removal too!
(As well as TIME I SAVE by resolving FASTER than DNS can via local system RAM caching hosts in my 100 fav. sites I keep @ TOP of hosts for fastest possible resolves + ad blocking time savings (as well as infection savings (again, malware removal takes time & money (your money))).
APK
P.S.=> Even China agreed & copied me http://theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/boffins_supercharge_the_hosts_file_to_save_users_plagued_by_dns_outages/ & "IMITATION's SINCEREST form of FLATTERY" ... apk
See subject as I SHUT YOU DOWN by using my code's self-verification of itself vs. infection/alteration by 'hacking' etc. https://it.slashdot.org/commen... & YOU certainly haven't done BETTER yourself either, lol (which I already knew about you & "your kind").
APK
P.S.=> EAT YOUR WORDS & tell us: How did they taste? Like your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH ramming them back down your chicken-neck throat washed down by the bitter taste of SELF-defeat?? Yes... apk
You proved 2 things then: The power of THOUGHT is beyond your limited mental capacity (lol) & that you're a skulking worm HIDING from me by your UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous weezil posts!
APK
P.S.=> ... & you KNOW it (constantly proving it) + I'm no sex offender (is THAT the "best ya got"? It's not worth squat, like you, hahahaha)... apk
SANS ("A related approach to the DNS issue is to create a hosts file on each system that sends requests for spyware to some place else. Both Ramu and an anonymous reader have suggested this" hosts by myself & RAMU right @ START of "malware explosion" mid 2005 on) https://isc.sans.edu/forums/di...
SANS (lists using hosts blocks) https://isc.sans.edu/forums/diary/Botnet+malware+defense/4138/
BLOCKING (What hosts do) BEFORE SCANNING @ SANS https://isc.sans.edu/forums/di...
Aryeh Goretsky/ESET/NOD32: hosts = good security http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7442373&cid=49747129/
ZD NET http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-use-a-hosts-file-to-improve-your-internet-experience/ "Hosts files really shine by letting you block ads, spyware sites, malware sites, & tracking sites"
Steve Gibson on hosts https://www.grc.com/sn/sn-045.htm/
* MORE COMING IN PART #2...
APK
P.S.=> Sorry, but hosts DO do port filtering as I showed stupid... apk
See subject & I see you RAN from the rest of my CRUSHING you easily via SECURITY PROS shutting your DUMBASS DOWN easily, lol!
APK
P.S.=> You LOSE fool - especially vs. TONS of security pros SHUTTING YOUR DUMBASS DOWN you dumbfuck DO-NOTHING loser that HIDES from me by UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous... apk
God, you are fucking retarded. You posted links to your previous 2 comments that I tore to pieces because apparently you think that supports your claim instead of just making you look dumb. You fail to refute anything I said anywhere and instead double down on your stupidity. After reading the links you provided it becomes apparent that you haven't read them, probably because you can't but then we knew you were illiterate since you fail to read and parse simple comments. They don't say what you think they say as I pointed out and you didn't contest or even attempt to rebut my statements thus conceding them. Yet you still claim you won, so you must by trying to convince yourself with that one as it isn't working on anyone else. It must be a difficult life being as retarded as you are, but you do lead a life full of failure.
To your first one the answer is only some and only from those that are well known long after they became a threat, but there are many solutions that do a better job of stopping that. The other options allow better options for block as one can block all machines in a domain at once instead of having to create an entry for each one. Also hosts can only ever stop outbound connections instead other tools can stop connections in both directions. So looks like you've been out done here.
To your second question no it doesn't' speed you up, especially when you are dealing with a file the size of yours, even if it does run in kernel mode. A linear search is all that can be done because it can't be assumed that hosts is sorted. Given that, it means that anything else that operates off of a sorted list will be faster. Add in the huge file you deal with and you really start seeing slow performance because string comparisons are expensive so the goal should be to reduce the number done, not maximize it like you seem to want to do. Also there are plenty of other tools that do a better job of stopping crap, like NoScript for example that stops all scripts thus providing more of a speedup than your work ever could. NoScript also manages to stop an entire broad category of attacks always instead of your work which can only stop attacks from well known sources that happen to be dependent on the client machine doing a DNS lookup. If I were worried about DNS outages or poisoning I would run something like dnsmasq either locally or on my network. This would handle all that, operates faster, and provide more security than your silly toy solutions.
We've been over this before about the Chinese but you can't seem to understand that it is more likely that they came up with the same stupid simplistic obvious idea independently. You keep asserting that they copied you but can provide no evidence beyond your own uninformed speculations.
You are right that I haven't done work that is as ineffective as your hosts file engine stupidity. This is because I actually have never created something as defective and then claimed it provides security. The software I work on and create actually requires that I be able to prove it provides security and the code goes through a formal verification and validation process. This process isn't a code review, but instead a team gets together and validates everything for correctness starting with the assertions that were made before coding began, and works their way up from there. This requires doing mathematical proofs and then validating that the code correctly implements the math which is something you don't comprehend. This is an expensive and time consuming process that none of your work has gone through and never will.
The problem you have is that you started with the false premise that hosts provides good security. The truth is that hosts is a black list and black lists are the worst way of doing that. They are better than nothing but when it comes to provable security they provide none. Black lists can never enumerate all possible entries, are always out of date, are easily circumvented, and require constant maintenance. You are a failure and no one should listen to your advise.
This is just more planned obsolescence PR--another nudge to go buy new chips. I'm still not buying new chips.