Hertzbleed Attack
Hmm, it feels like Intel&#x2F;AMD are ducking and just hoping that the implications of this are not large.<p>Here&#x27;s a video from Intel chatting with the researchers: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;community.intel.com&#x2F;t5&#x2F;Blogs&#x2F;Products-and-Solutions&#x2F;Security&#x2F;Chips-Salsa-Episode-19-June-2022-Security-Advisories-Hertzbleed&#x2F;post&#x2F;1392094" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;community.intel.com&#x2F;t5&#x2F;Blogs&#x2F;Products-and-Solutions&#x2F;...</a><p>The questions are incredibly weak from the interviewers. They first state that it&#x27;s not practical because the attack could take many hours, even days. But they don&#x27;t describe why a day-long attack is not practical.<p>They then bring the researchers and ask them the same question. The researchers say that the attack is very practical because it only takes.. a few hours or days to execute the attack. Here&#x27;s the specific part: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;BiRPr839dSU?t=1476" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;BiRPr839dSU?t=1476</a><p>Instead of chatting more about this discrepancy they just ignore it and ask the researches how they feel about their new popularity.<p>From what I can tell from the advisory from Intel, it&#x27;s simply that people should understand the attack and mitigate it in software. It&#x27;s very vague. The specifics (i.e. a list of example popular programs that are vulnerable) seem entirely missing.