Microsoft disables Spectre mitigations as Intel’s patches cause instability

Re:Microsoft disables Spectre mitigations as Intel’s patches... by jschwartzi on Monday January 29, 2018 @11:33AM (#16258445)

It's easy. You gather information about what the risks and hazards are for each vulnerability and then pragmatically decide whether there are any unacceptable risks after you mitigate with other layers of security.

It's a really common engineering task to do this and I'm not at all surprised that someone trying to maintain uptime would do so. Honestly it's more mature than updating every time because each change also introduces more potential for regression. If your goal is to run a stable system you want to avoid this unless the risk is outweighed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Microsoft disables Spectre mitigations as Intel’s patches... by ams6110 on Monday January 29, 2018 @09:17PM (#16262403)

But with "yum check-update" or the equivalent apt-get incantation saying you have dozens of security updates every week or two, reading the release notes for all of them and deciding which ones can be skipped safely in your environment is too much work. Far easier to just apply all updates every two weeks or monthly or whatever your schedule is, and then reboot.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Microsoft disables Spectre mitigations as Intel’s patches... by tluyben2 on Monday January 29, 2018 @09:21PM (#16262424)

Fully agree here; a lot (most?) of patches and updates are simply not exploitable in the respective server use case, so why should I incur risk of downtime to apply it?

[ Parent | on HN ]