lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20050729202004.GA19749@linux.unixwiz.net> Date: Fri Jul 29 21:20:13 2005 From: steve at unixwiz.net (Steve Friedl) Subject: Cisco IOS Shellcode Presentation On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 04:06:58PM -0400, Tim wrote: > However, let me ask you this (as I truly don't know): Did Intel > advertize to OS makers that they should never allow two processes of > different access rights to use the two virtual CPUs at the same time? > If it wasn't documented, then it surely was their fault. If it was > documented, then it really does cut down on the benefit of the feature. If this is the hyperthreading cache timing thing: http://www.daemonology.net/hyperthreading-considered-harmful/ it's not nearly so simple as one thread stealing from the cache of another: there is no data sharing going on. Instead, one thread can get some vague hints about what's in the other guy's cache by watching the timing of his *own* cache. It's a bit of *outstanding* technical work, but I think it has really limited impact in the real world. Even in carefully controlled conditions it's going to be difficult to make this work, and I think that on a busy server it's going to be nearly impossible to even know at the instruction level which other process is running on the other thread. (by the time you figure out that openssh has been scheduled, it's too late). Unless I hear a lot more about this than I've seen so far, I would not give this matter a thought. Steve -- Stephen J Friedl | Security Consultant | UNIX Wizard | +1 714 544-6561 www.unixwiz.net | Tustin, Calif. USA | Microsoft MVP | steve@...xwiz.net
Powered by blists - more mailing lists