Until you can tell me EXACTLY what cells you are modifying and in what way, you will NEVER be able to utilize this vulnerability interesting observation for any kind of useful exploit
And everyone should cast aside their caution and put their faith in Slashdot pronouncements of confident self appointed security expert, exactly why?
this is a kind of Rowhammer attack, which Apple mitigated in 2015
If Apple says they mitigated it years ago, even without knowing about current research, then we can rest assured that they told the truth just as always, right? Right?
I have branched the Linux kernel (but never managed to get my patches merged)
Well, now that you have put in the effort to create a fork of Linux, you can enjoy it yourself if it does something useful enough to live. If you want to call it a branch, go right ahead, but everybody except you understands that fork and branch are synonyms with respect to a code base.
I'm having a bit of fun with you because your argument is so idiotic. Every time you make a change of any kind to a code base, you fork it. Whether you keep it forked or not is up to you. If you had ever used git you would know this, so I assume that you have not.
Every time I see the sheer quantity of chrome or google processes on a PC, I cringe. Why does chrome need 4 processes before it displays a home/start page? Why does google schedule update checks once at logon and then *every hour*?
Because Google interns (who are the ones who actually write the code because full-timers are too busy with offsites or facetiming each other or fattening up on the free food) learned how to start a process, and that is the one technique they remember from class. So they try to solve every problem that way.
And to avoid getting caught at this and continue to lure new unsuspecting victims, make the RHEL Buzilla subscriber-only so nobody outside gets to see just how buggy the RHEL kernels really are.
Even ubuntu's kernels are not 100% upstream, they have their own kernel engineers.
And Red Hat kernels are massively forked from mainline. It's actually really ugly, but that is Red Hat's business model in a nutshell: 1) fork old mainline kernel by backporting a massive number of patches from more up to date kernels 2) do this as quickly as possible with as little testing as possible 3) ship it 4) charge customers big money for chasing the many resulting bugs.
Just out of interest, how do you think the kernel gets changed? How do you think the kernel gets changed into a fork? How are these not the same? Are you really as clueless as you seem?
Open Source software gets paid for by tracking users and selling their information to advertisers.
Google pays roughly fuck all into the Linux community. Employs a few kernel hackers, mostly for its own hacked production kernel but a couple just doing whatever they want like Andrew Morton and Ted Tys'o. Other much smaller companies put a lot more money into the community, and are correspondingly more respected.
Doesn't that make Samsung the number one Linux distributor? After all, Samsung does not distribute vanilla Android, they distribute their own forked version, much as any Linux distributor does.
I am concerned about presence of these mega-corporations in such influential positions within Linux Foundation and open source world in general.
Linux Foundation is not influential in the Linux world, they just provide the party fund. Otherwise they are widely regarded as a bunch of ineffectual, self important PHBs. If Jim Zemlin ever worked up the spit to try to tell Linus what to do, Linus would instead tell him what to do in very clear terms and Zemlin would just have to say, thanks Linus, I needed that.
Microsoft and Google both use Linux to run critical parts of their cloud infrastructure which is one of the biggest and most profitable parts of their respective businesses.
For Microsoft, they also have a huge fraction of their Azure customers wanting to run Linux vms, not Windows.
Anybody thinking Microsoft has any interest in destroying Linux needs to get with the times
Don't kid yourself, Microsoft would still love to destroy Linux and rule the world. But they already tried their hardest and failed hard. Now they are trying the next best thing. If they ever perceive an opportune moment to strike again, they will.
These days there is very little overlap between Windows and Linux, they simply aren't competitors in the vast majority of spaces that they are used.
That is completely wrong as any idiot can see. Microsoft would love to own the webserver, data center, HPC and embedded spaces that Linux rules, don't kid yourself. They still attempt, feebly, to do so, though at least they seem to have finally gone uncle on HPC. They have not yet given up on web servers, though the world would be a much better and safer place if they did. And as everybody knows, Microsoft still viciously fights to keep its hold on the desktop, though even that is starting to crack. Linux guys have certainly not given up competing in that space, the Plasma desktop I am posting this from says otherwise, in large beautiful, antialiased, free and open fonts.
Yer yer [sic] just fork the kernel, so simplez. No implications. So cheap because open source.
The Linux kernel has been forked many times and is forked now. Many embedded device vendors fork the Linux kernel to name just one significant sector. That is perfectly OK, so long as they provide their patches and build instructions when asked, or even better, without needing to be asked.
Slashdot Mirror
Until you can tell me EXACTLY what cells you are modifying and in what way, you will NEVER be able to utilize this vulnerability interesting observation for any kind of useful exploit
And everyone should cast aside their caution and put their faith in Slashdot pronouncements of confident self appointed security expert, exactly why?
this is a kind of Rowhammer attack, which Apple mitigated in 2015
If Apple says they mitigated it years ago, even without knowing about current research, then we can rest assured that they told the truth just as always, right? Right?
Mandatory predator reference.
I have branched the Linux kernel (but never managed to get my patches merged)
Well, now that you have put in the effort to create a fork of Linux, you can enjoy it yourself if it does something useful enough to live. If you want to call it a branch, go right ahead, but everybody except you understands that fork and branch are synonyms with respect to a code base.
you don't know for sure whether there is anti-GPL 'faction' in Google
There is and I do.
I'm having a bit of fun with you because your argument is so idiotic. Every time you make a change of any kind to a code base, you fork it. Whether you keep it forked or not is up to you. If you had ever used git you would know this, so I assume that you have not.
Forks and patches have nothing to do with murder.
Let me get this straight, you are seriously making an equivalence between forking and a lifetime in jail? Please.
Every time I see the sheer quantity of chrome or google processes on a PC, I cringe. Why does chrome need 4 processes before it displays a home/start page? Why does google schedule update checks once at logon and then *every hour*?
Because Google interns (who are the ones who actually write the code because full-timers are too busy with offsites or facetiming each other or fattening up on the free food) learned how to start a process, and that is the one technique they remember from class. So they try to solve every problem that way.
So "plans" are the difference between forking and patching, according to you? Good luck with that.
And to avoid getting caught at this and continue to lure new unsuspecting victims, make the RHEL Buzilla subscriber-only so nobody outside gets to see just how buggy the RHEL kernels really are.
Even ubuntu's kernels are not 100% upstream, they have their own kernel engineers.
And Red Hat kernels are massively forked from mainline. It's actually really ugly, but that is Red Hat's business model in a nutshell: 1) fork old mainline kernel by backporting a massive number of patches from more up to date kernels 2) do this as quickly as possible with as little testing as possible 3) ship it 4) charge customers big money for chasing the many resulting bugs.
Just out of interest, how do you think the kernel gets changed? How do you think the kernel gets changed into a fork? How are these not the same? Are you really as clueless as you seem?
Yes it is.
Open Source software gets paid for by tracking users and selling their information to advertisers.
Google pays roughly fuck all into the Linux community. Employs a few kernel hackers, mostly for its own hacked production kernel but a couple just doing whatever they want like Andrew Morton and Ted Tys'o. Other much smaller companies put a lot more money into the community, and are correspondingly more respected.
Google couldn't exist without Linux and open-source software.
I'm sure they could do just fine using BSD.
Haha, you really know how to tell 'em, will you be here all night?
Recruiters also want to know about your Microsoft security certs
The words "microsoft" and "security" do not belong in the same sentence.
I'm also completely sure that you're correct that only a tiny fraction of new non-server PC sales come with a flavor of Linux that isn't ChromeOS.
A tiny fraction, but still large in absolute numbers, and rapidly growing. For example, check this out.
Doesn't that make Samsung the number one Linux distributor? After all, Samsung does not distribute vanilla Android, they distribute their own forked version, much as any Linux distributor does.
I'm trying to find a consistent number for ChromeOS in terms of new PC sales...
One data point: ChromeOS is now over 60% of US K12 sales. Microsoft is a distant second and Apple has been squeezed to oblivion.
Google is responsible for a large proportion of the software installed on devices using the Linux kernel. But it seems they don't acknowledge that...
You only just now realized that Google guys are intellectually dishonest?
I am concerned about presence of these mega-corporations in such influential positions within Linux Foundation and open source world in general.
Linux Foundation is not influential in the Linux world, they just provide the party fund. Otherwise they are widely regarded as a bunch of ineffectual, self important PHBs. If Jim Zemlin ever worked up the spit to try to tell Linus what to do, Linus would instead tell him what to do in very clear terms and Zemlin would just have to say, thanks Linus, I needed that.
Google should have recognized the relationship and upped their membership (and contributions) long ago. Cheap bastards.
You didn't know that about Google until now? Welcome to the land of the enlightened.
Microsoft and Google both use Linux to run critical parts of their cloud infrastructure which is one of the biggest and most profitable parts of their respective businesses.
For Microsoft, they also have a huge fraction of their Azure customers wanting to run Linux vms, not Windows.
Anybody thinking Microsoft has any interest in destroying Linux needs to get with the times
Don't kid yourself, Microsoft would still love to destroy Linux and rule the world. But they already tried their hardest and failed hard. Now they are trying the next best thing. If they ever perceive an opportune moment to strike again, they will.
These days there is very little overlap between Windows and Linux, they simply aren't competitors in the vast majority of spaces that they are used.
That is completely wrong as any idiot can see. Microsoft would love to own the webserver, data center, HPC and embedded spaces that Linux rules, don't kid yourself. They still attempt, feebly, to do so, though at least they seem to have finally gone uncle on HPC. They have not yet given up on web servers, though the world would be a much better and safer place if they did. And as everybody knows, Microsoft still viciously fights to keep its hold on the desktop, though even that is starting to crack. Linux guys have certainly not given up competing in that space, the Plasma desktop I am posting this from says otherwise, in large beautiful, antialiased, free and open fonts.
Yer yer [sic] just fork the kernel, so simplez. No implications. So cheap because open source.
The Linux kernel has been forked many times and is forked now. Many embedded device vendors fork the Linux kernel to name just one significant sector. That is perfectly OK, so long as they provide their patches and build instructions when asked, or even better, without needing to be asked.