| 1 |
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 8:33 PM, Corbin Bird <corbinbird@×××××××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 01/09/2018 01:56 AM, Mick wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> At this point, the only sure bet, is a non x86, x86_64, ARM, ARM64 CPU. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Don't know enough to make a recommendation on a particular CPU arch at this |
| 8 |
> point. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Good luck with that... |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
If you aren't hearing about Spectre fixes for a CPU it is most likely |
| 14 |
because it is so obscure that nobody has bothered to check whether it |
| 15 |
is vulnerable. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Sure, there are some CPUs that have been tested and found to be ok. |
| 18 |
However, almost anything modern is vulnerable to spectre. I just |
| 19 |
wasn't something that was on anybody's radar. New CPUs are likely to |
| 20 |
be resistant to these types of attacks regardless of vendor. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Sure, if I was about to place an order for 1000 CPUs tomorrow I'd |
| 23 |
probably pick AMD over Intel to avoid the PTI overhead, but that is |
| 24 |
about as far as I'd let these vulnerabilities affect purchase |
| 25 |
decisions. There are lots of good reasons to go with ARM vs x86, but |
| 26 |
this isn't really one of them. And outside of x86/ARM I think almost |
| 27 |
any other CPU choice is going to be a niche item. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Rich |
Archives