Google says Rowhammer attacks are gaining range as RAM is getting denser
<i>But while there are no known cases where Rowhammer attacks have been used in the real world</i><p>Not on purpose but I'm sure that either it or phenomenon like it are the causes of a lot of odd "glitchy" behaviour that people encounter, because systems are run so close to their limits that there are bound to be cases when they surpass the limits. I remember many years ago discovering that a system which passed the CPU and memory stress tests of the time 100% (ran many days), but would very reliably corrupt a particular .zip file's contents upon extraction; and no other that I could see. Turning down the FSB by 1MHz(!) was enough to make it stable again.<p>But I remain convinced that Rowhammer is a fundamental defect and all RAM which is susceptible to it should be recalled and replaced. It really says something about the industry when they've managed to convince <i>memory testing tools</i> to treat RH tests as "optional" and "not a real concern, most RAM will show errors" when the discovery first came to light. 26 years ago, Intel offered to recall and replace processors that couldn't divide, after an initial period of reluctance, but only once the bad publicity started. Can RAM manufacturers be coerced into doing the same, and perhaps even go back to pre-Rowhammer process sizes? Sacrificing <i>correctness</i> should never be an option.<p>(This post made from a 10+-year-old machine containing RAM that is perfectly free of Rowhammer.)