Oh dear. This is very not good. Without knowing machine level programing
as well as I should, is it possible to create a patch for the, in the Linux
kernel for example? Will there be a significant performance hit?
This code does NOT affect Cyrix 6x86 (166+ specifically, but probably all of
them) processors. If you run a multiuser, untrusted system, I suggest
reserving some at your local computer supplier... unless there is an easy
fix for this, there is going to be a run on them.
I don't know if AMD's Pentium-clone chips are vulnerable.
[Someone Else]
> This bug looks far worse that FPIV. Intel will probably be forced to
> undergo an expensive recall, although I wonder just how Intel plans on
> getting the broken Pentium on my IBM thinkpad fixed. I like to let
> co-workers access my machine when it is hooked up to the network at work,
> and will have to now severely restrict any such access.
Well, it really only affects multiuser systems, where untrusted code can
be executed. There are so many ways to lock Windows 95 up already, one
more cause won't make that much of a difference, and that's the vast
majority of Pentium users. But multiuser systems are in deep sh*t.
Does anyone know if the process accounting in Linux will log the execution
of this before it locks up the machine? I seem to remember that it logs
on process completion, unfortunately.
And is there an NT exploit for this?
--
/// Stefan Hudson <hudson@mbay.net>
__ /// Senior Network Administrator - Monterey Bay Internet
\\\/// http://www.mbay.net/ - Email: info@mbay.net
\XX/ Voice: 408-642-6100 Fax: 408-642-6101 Modem: 408-642-6102