11–20 of 127 posts
Article title is slightly misleading: by smaller they mean process size, increasing the range of the rowhammer attacks logically due to decreased distance between memory cells even though the physics limited distance is the same.
Article title is slightly misleading: by smaller they mean process size, increasing the range of the rowhammer attacks logically due to decreased distance between memory cells even though the physics limited distance is the same.
I'm the author of the article. With all due respect, but I will have to push back on your categorization as 'slightly misleading' here. Your explanation effectively explains the headline and is also what Google researchers said. How is the headline misleading?
In other words, blame Intel for trying to pass off ECC as a "Enterprise Feature" instead of the basic necessity that it is.
Article title is slightly misleading: by smaller they mean process size, increasing the range of the rowhammer attacks logically due to decreased distance between memory cells even though the physics limited distance is the same.
In other words, blame Intel for trying to pass off ECC as a "Enterprise Feature" instead of the basic necessity that it is.
ECC is vulnerable to Rowhammer.
It's interesting! It seems fixable, based on information later on in the article ("Can I get DDR3 DIMMs that are Rowhammer-free?"), and ECC only seems to be part of a solution, and not a complete solution.
But you're still right, and I was still wrong: ECC alone isn't good enough.
Article title is slightly misleading: by smaller they mean process size, increasing the range of the rowhammer attacks logically due to decreased distance between memory cells even though the physics limited distance is the same.
As opposed to what other interpretation of the word small?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm the author of the article. With all due respect, but I will have to push back on your categorization as 'slightly misleading' here. Your explanation effectively explains the headline and is also what Google researchers said. How is the headline misleading?
When I initially read the headline I thought for a second that it meant storage capacity is getting smaller. But then I realized that that doesn't make sense and it's referring to process size.
Is there any evidence of Rawhammer being used in a successful attack in the wild?