News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on TRRespass: Rowhammer against DDR4. Parent comment

Re:TRRespass: Rowhammer against DDR4 by AnthonyMouse on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @06:31PM (#22551528)
The dependency comes from pushing the physical limits until the abstraction leaks. Older memory technologies were not vulnerable to rowhammer. But they were also a lot slower.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:TRRespass: Rowhammer against DDR4 by wtallis on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @07:15PM (#22551825)
Is this unreliability being driven by newer DRAM being faster, or by newer DRAM being denser?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:TRRespass: Rowhammer against DDR4 by potiuper on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @07:42PM (#22551999)
Denser & lower voltage
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:TRRespass: Rowhammer against DDR4 by CarlRJ on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @07:58PM (#22552109)
That's it, we're going back to core memory.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:TRRespass: Rowhammer against DDR4 by BuildTheRobots on Thursday March 12, 2020 @10:03AM (#22556951)
If you thought "cold boot attacks" were a problem with DDR, using memory that still holds data 50 years later might be an issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_boot_attack

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:TRRespass: Rowhammer against DDR4 by saagarjha on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @08:04PM (#22552141)
Core memory has temperature issues.
[ Parent | on HN ]