News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Downfall Attacks by yencabulator on Wednesday August 16, 2023 @11:52AM (#37148966)
> Note how all their mitigations for these attacks always have off switches: not something you usually see in security fixes. It's because in many, many cases, these attacks just don't matter.

They have off switches because they can have severe performance costs, which most security fixes don't have.

> All software running on the same physical core or even the same physical CPU is either running at the same trust level, or sandboxed so heavily it can't mount the attack.

Former is simply not true. For example, EC2 avoids mixing tenants on the same core, but even the AWS serverless stuff doesn't do that, for cost reasons. For most end user computers, this is blatantly not true.

Operating system level sandboxing is largely irrelevant if the attacker can simply read secrets from other processes running on the same core at the CPU level. Most processes will have a way to smuggle the stolen goods out.

Re:Downfall Attacks by mike_hearn on Thursday August 17, 2023 @05:02AM (#37159023)
By "sandboxed so heavily" I meant browsers, which don't allow shared memory multi-threading, tight control over CPU instructions or high resolution timers, so it's very hard to mount specex attacks there. I've seen claims it can be done but very few demos, and the only demo I remember trying didn't actually work.

By "running on the same physical core" I meant simultaneously. You can usually wipe uarch state when switching between tenants pretty well. If AWS aren't doing this then that's something for them to solve but I'm pretty sure major cloud users don't have to worry about these attacks as so many only affect hyperthreads that are running concurrently and it's not cost prohibitive to avoid mixing tenants that way.