unix_surrealism

2893 readers

1 users here now

This community is for sharing original content related to computers, content, surrealism and wizardry.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

pmjv@lemmy.sdf.org

wesker@lemmy.sdf.org

277

"dish is much more idiosyncratic then cliTTY" (files.mastodon.social)

submitted 6 months ago by io@piefed.blahaj.zone to c/unix_surrealism@lemmy.sdf.org

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

signes your child may be hacked

idk the link so here is the mastodon post about it https://merveilles.town/@prahou/113442370828460378

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] recursivethinking@lemmy.world 31 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So remember that it's one core (physical) acting as if it was 2 (virtual). Each of these vCores could be assigned to separate workloads on a server. But because it's ultimately one core, threadA could possibly access data in threadB. If A was a different entity than B, then entity A could access entity B's data.

It's more that CPU architecture is insecure in general.

But so is literally everything when you go down the deep dark rabbit hole of all the tech we use. Meltdown, Spectre, rowhammer, VMScape. The one where they can figure out your password from the sound of your keyboard while you're on a zoom call.

[–] swelter_spark@reddthat.com 2 points 5 months ago

Ohhh, that makes sense. I either never thought about that before, or maybe I subconsciously assumed it was a solved problem.