# Do you disable hyperthreading? (poll)



## P4-630 (May 19, 2019)

Yet Another Speculative Malfunction: Intel Reveals New Side-Channel Attack, Advises Disabling Hyper-Threading Below 8th, 9th Gen CPUs
					

Ouch doesn't even begin to describe how much that headline hurt. As far as speculative execution goes, it's been well covered by now, but here's a refresher. Speculative execution essentially means that your CPU tries to think ahead of time on what data may or may not be needed, and processes it...




					www.techpowerup.com
				




I have 2 intel computers and they both have hyperthreading enabled.


----------



## dorsetknob (May 19, 2019)

I'm More worried about the CIA Telapaths accessing my organic CPU than these Speculative Vector attacks


----------



## NdMk2o1o (May 19, 2019)

SMT bitches yeaaaaaaa   

Sorry, I'll see myself out


----------



## silentbogo (May 19, 2019)

No. Why?
Just like with Spectre/Meltdown/Ryzenfall and whatever other weirdly-named vulnerability, it is a bit more complex and a bit blown out of proportions (in a John McAfee kinda way). 
One of my machines is Ryzen 1600x, another one is i3-6100 running barebones Ubuntu server behind NAT only with port 80 and 443 and another one for SFTP facing the real world. 
So far the only way I can get my mini-server get affected is if I have some sort of vulnerability in the software which gives the perpetrator the ability to install malware/cache sniffer on my PC, or server misconfiguration. If this happens - I'll be more concerned with said software vulnerability or with me being stupid.

Another thing you need to remember is that before switching your brain into a "panic mode" after reading some crap on the internet, you may want to check with the actual source regarding the nature of that attack and the actual attack vector. Even in their summary there is a key point that makes "disabling HT" kinda pointless in the grand scheme of things:


> Even without Hyperthreading, it is possible to leak data out of other protection domains. During experimentation it turned out, that ZombieLoad leaks endure serializing instructions. Such leaks do however work with lower probability and are harder to obtain.


So, with HT enabled you are kinda f#$%ed, and with HT disabled you are a little less kinda f#$%ed...


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (May 19, 2019)

No.
Reasoning is it's another "vulnerability" hackers won't take advantage of on the mainstream as there are plenty of other ways to money grab then take advantage of a complex vulnerability, and all these "vulnerabilities" took years to discover.


----------



## lsevald (May 19, 2019)

No. I still haven't allowed win10 to patch the spectre/meltdown security holes. My haswell setup is on its last legs, and I just need it to survive a couple of more months until the new Ryzen becomes available. 

My take on this is that you still need malicious code to run on your machine to exploit these vulnerabilities, just like any other virus/malware? Or am I wrong?

I'll rather update my anti-virus, firewall, origins ublocker and backup my data more often, than to cripple my computer performance further. For now anyway


----------



## repman244 (May 19, 2019)

silentbogo said:


> No. Why?
> Just like with Spectre/Meltdown/Ryzenfall and whatever other weirdly-named vulnerability, it is a bit more complex and a bit blown out of proportions.



This. 
All of these so called vulnerabilities are blown way out of proportions - personally i wouldn't even care if there was no "fix" for them. They are a threat in enterprise/server etc. environments, but there are much bigger threats to home PC users then these are.
I also don't keep any critical files/info on my primary PC so I don't care if it gets infected.


----------



## FYFI13 (May 19, 2019)

I have disabled SMT on my rig, seems to help a bit when playing Arma 3


----------



## xtreemchaos (May 19, 2019)

na, i did a while ago with my 7700k to see how it performed in cb15 and its not good its lessthan a fx8350, so ill leave as is i only use it for image processing i do everything else on my 2700x.


----------



## Solaris17 (May 19, 2019)

Nope, the odds of any of these affecting home
Users and users in general are less than winning the lottery. Iv tried to explain it in another thread but mass hysteria is a real thing.


----------



## enxo218 (May 19, 2019)

No, machine is for gaming mostly really and I'm not degrading cpu performance for maybe attacks. games from gog are backed up so worst scenario are reinstalls and steam re download. For guys working in cloud computing related tech tho...sirens are always going off I guess


----------



## moproblems99 (May 19, 2019)

Nope.  These are just a threat for enterprise and datacenters unless you are a highly interesting person.  Which I highly doubt.  I know I'm not.  I think it sucks all my data (medical records and all) are all housed on systems running these CPUs but my identity was stolen by a rogue person inside Bank of America anyway.

While these threats are real and serious, they just aren't serious to home users in 99.999999999999999999999999% of cases.


----------



## freeagent (May 19, 2019)

I did, but not because of all of this. I watch tv through my computer, and with ht enabled the picture stuttered all the time. Didn't matter what browser I used. Using HDMI from my 980 to my amp. Now that Bell has dropped support for IE and Edge, I use firefox to view. Chrome stutters like the others did, Firefox is running good. Also picked up a few more gflops in linpack extreme with ht off, went from about 112 gflps to 122. And in a lot but not all of tests in aida64, I get my ass handed to me. The things we do for tv 

Its like running a 3570k with 8mb cache 

Edit:

Okay, so I just enabled it again, and everything is smooth again, not sure what to say! Maybe IE and Edge aren't the best to use these days heh.. So anyways, HT back on and all is well.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 19, 2019)

Solaris17 said:


> Nope, the odds of any of these affecting home
> Users and users in general are less than winning the lottery. Iv tried to explain it in another thread but mass hysteria is a real thing.


Do you feel that hyperthreading needs disabling in the work place? I mean in areas like mine where validation and IP security is important but i suppose other areas might need it doing.??

Because I think corporate IP theft is likely to be the main use case for anyone actually trying to use such things that and financial theft and possibly cyberterror?.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 19, 2019)

Xx Tek Tip xX said:


> No.
> Reasoning is it's another "vulnerability" hackers won't take advantage of


That's assuming they even could - which is unlikely since it assumes the bad guys can just slip on past all the other computer and network defenses, plant and execute the code to exploit the vulnerability - while remaining undetected. 

Plus, the initial knee-jerk advice for all users to disable hyper-threading has been rescinded or debunked by most experts.


moproblems99 said:


> but my identity was stolen by a rogue person instead Bank of America anyway.


As was mine with Equifax. But it is important to understand and remember in almost every corporate hacking event, the bad guys were successful because of negligence, laziness, and/or incompetence by those in charge of and responsible for the security of those systems. In the Equifax hack for example, the software developers had identified the vulnerability, developed, released and provided to Equifax the patch to fix that vulnerability months before the hack occurred. But Equifax never applied it. Why? Negligence, laziness and incompetence by the system administrators and lackadaisical attitudes by the executives. Heck! Much of our personal information wasn't even encrypted. 



theoneandonlymrk said:


> Do you feel that hyperthreading needs disabling in the work place?


If your work place is a free hotspot at McDonalds and you leave your notebook on your table unattended for 10 minutes, then maybe, yes.

And FTR, when AMD or any other chipmaker can offer a 100%, full money back guarantee their processors are 100% flaw-free, then and only then might I decide Intel's are no longer worth considering for my next personal build.


----------



## EarthDog (May 19, 2019)

Yes.

But ONLY because I was put in a situation where I can. I got lucky and have a 7960x. My workload doesnt benefit from more than 6-8c/12-16t so I can. 

That said, this security thing or not, with lesser core counts, like 4/6/8, I dont see a reason to do so as it can cause performance loss.


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (May 19, 2019)

Of course don't care for personal rigs & non-critical workstations.  HT on.

Do very much care for network servers I'm responsible for, especially with the amount of hacking tries the logs are showing lately.  HT off, only a matter of time for somebody to program bots which can use these new hacks and it's going to be painful (if not done already).

Now dealing with non-scheduled server upgrades...


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 19, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> That's assuming they even could - which is unlikely since it assumes the bad guys can just slip on past all the other computer and network defenses, plant and execute the code to exploit the vulnerability - while remaining undetected.
> 
> Plus, the initial knee-jerk advice for all users to disable hyper-threading has been rescinded or debunked by most experts.
> As was mine with Equifax. But it is important to understand and remember in almost every corporate hacking event, the bad guys were successful because of negligence, laziness, and/or incompetence by those in charge of and responsible for the security of those systems. In the Equifax hack for example, the software developers had identified the vulnerability, developed, released and provided to Equifax the patch to fix that vulnerability months before the hack occurred. But Equifax never applied it. Why? Negligence, laziness and incompetence by the system administrators and lackadaisical attitudes by the executives. Heck! Much of our personal information wasn't even encrypted.
> ...


eh Im not calling our IT department,  im just interested generally , And play fair their are only two desktop CPU maker's, only a fool would'nt consider both options ,you can pick what you want but at least look around and i agree no cpu can ever be made to be secure 100% in the future, it does'nt work like that afaik.


----------



## Deleted member 178884 (May 19, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> That's assuming they even could - which is unlikely since it assumes the bad guys can just slip on past all the other computer and network defenses, plant and execute the code to exploit the vulnerability - while remaining undetected.


Well according to all these AMD fanboys, every hacker is a professional and not a script kiddie, apparently.


----------



## Aquinus (May 19, 2019)

Honestly, it's just another exploit that requires the stars to align to be useful for any real kind of malicious use. The PoC shows it can be done, it doesn't show how it can be useful. It's just another mitigation that I'm going to disable.


----------



## Vya Domus (May 19, 2019)

I am going to venture and say that even corporations that make use of severs on a large scale are not going to concern themselves much with this.


----------



## cucker tarlson (May 19, 2019)

is there a windows update coming to mitigate this and how do I disable it?


----------



## moproblems99 (May 19, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> As was mine with Equifax. But it is important to understand and remember in almost every corporate hacking event, the bad guys were successful because of negligence, laziness, and/or incompetence by those in charge of and responsible for the security of those systems. In the Equifax hack for example, the software developers had identified the vulnerability, developed, released and provided to Equifax the patch to fix that vulnerability months before the hack occurred. But Equifax never applied it. Why? Negligence, laziness and incompetence by the system administrators and lackadaisical attitudes by the executives. Heck! Much of our personal information wasn't even encrypted.



Yeah, I mean like you said, there are likely always going to be far easier ways to get in but this just means that the attic vent is always open and waiting so you don't need to check all the windows and doors.


----------



## xkm1948 (May 19, 2019)

Welp I may have to go Threadripper with Zen2 cores next year. Disabling HT will be a huge no for me.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 19, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> but this just means that the attic vent is always open


I see it totally opposite of that. The attic vent is located on the extreme outer perimeter of my home. And while my attic vent may be open, the extreme outer perimeter of my computer network is my router and it definitely is NOT open for anyone to crawl through. 

A more applicable "house" analogy for me with this flaw would be if I left a stack of $20s in a lock box hidden in one of the 6 closets in my home. But the "flaw" is that the lock is broken on the box and a badguy can easily open it with a screwdriver - no key required. But to get those $20 he would have to breach my outer perimeter, crawl very quietly through the attic access panel to drop down (again very quietly) into the living area, get past my puppy dawgs without waking them, find the correct closet, find the lock box hidden in that closet, take the money then escape out of the house - all without running into me and my Glock 17 hollow-points waiting to remove the entire back of his skull. If he can do that, he can have the money.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 19, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> I see it totally opposite of that. The attic vent is located on the extreme outer perimeter of my home. And while my attic vent may be open, the extreme outer perimeter of my computer network is my router and it definitely is NOT open for anyone to crawl through.
> 
> A more applicable "house" analogy for me with this flaw would be if I left a stack of $20s in a lock box hidden in one of the 6 closets in my home. But the "flaw" is that the lock is broken on the box and a badguy can easily open it with a screwdriver - no key required. But to get those $20 he would have to breach my outer perimeter, crawl very quietly through the attic access panel to drop down (again very quietly) into the living area, get past my puppy dawgs without waking them, find the correct closet, find the lock box hidden in that closet, take the money then escape out of the house - all without running into me and my Glock 17 hollow-points waiting to remove the entire back of his skull. If he can do that, he can have the money.



I wasn't looking for an exact analogy, honestly.  The gist of what I was saying is that turning a door handle or sliding up (or sideways) a window is much easier than climbing stucco and going through my relatively small attic vent.

Even so, I made the bigger mistake in even referencing a house because no attacker is going to go through this much trouble for you (or me) when they could simply go through one of the shittiest protocols we have - http.

This attack is only going to target government and financial targets.  So for that analogy, I should have used: This means the attacker doesn't have to trick the security guard because an hvac grate isn't on so they can sneak through the hvac ducting if they can figure out the maze.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 19, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> Even so, I made the bigger mistake in even referencing a house because no attacker is going to go through this much trouble for you (or me) when they could simply go through one of the shittiest protocols we have - http.


Fortunately, we are finally moving on to https - not the cure-all but much better. But your point is still the same. Unless a hacker is targeting you specifically (and then you likely have bigger security issues to deal with) this flaw is not a problem.


----------



## dirtyferret (May 19, 2019)

No, those Intel bastards turned off the HT on my 8600k in manufacturing without my vote!


----------



## Metroid (May 19, 2019)

You should disable hypertreading only if you dont know how to secure yourself from the internet and you use your computer for financial transactions. Remember that , using online banking even if you secure yourself from the internet is not 100% safe so be just like me, never use the computer for online banking. Better be safe than sorry.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 19, 2019)

Metroid said:


> using online banking even if you secure yourself from the internet is not 100% safe so be just like me, never use the computer for online banking.


I think that is a bit extreme and going overboard. 

I am much more worried about my bank being hacked than my system. So I will continue to pay my bills on-line, purchase from Amazon and NewEgg and Walmart on-line. Just as I will use secure messaging to contact my doctor and order prescription refills from my pharmacy on-line. But I will keep Windows and my security current. And I will avoid being "click-happy" on unsolicited links, downloads, attachments and popups. 

I note, however - to your paranoid side - I do this only on my "Ethernet" connected PC. Not with my wireless connected notebook and never over my cell phone - even though I feel those two methods can be adequately secured too.


----------



## trparky (May 19, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> That's assuming they even could - which is unlikely since it assumes the bad guys can just slip on past all the other computer and network defenses, plant and execute the code to exploit the vulnerability - while remaining undetected.


Considering that your web browser is essentially running untrusted code (in this case, Javascript) a web browser can be the doorway into your system. Granted, if you use an ad blocker you generally reduce this potential threat by a *significantly* large amount but the threat is _technically_ still there.

As for me turning off Hyperthreading? Nope, I would demand a check from Intel first before I turn off a feature that I paid for.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 19, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> Fortunately, we are finally moving on to https - not the cure-all but much better.



Yes, https is better.  But the foundation of https is still critically flawed which leaves the whole building shaky.  We'll get it right eventually.


----------



## R-T-B (May 19, 2019)

I did not.  I used the mitigations though.

Something to keep in mind is all you have to do is execute malicious javascript on a webpage to be affected by this one in a useful way...  that alone makes it bother me far more than meltdown/spectre.



dorsetknob said:


> I'm More worried about the CIA Telapaths accessing my organic CPU than these Speculative Vector attacks



I think you are safe there.  I do genuinely worry about this vulnerability for clients and spectreclass ones in the cloudspace.  There, they all have massive potential for havoc if ignored.


----------



## xkm1948 (May 19, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> I see it totally opposite of that. The attic vent is located on the extreme outer perimeter of my home. And while my attic vent may be open, the extreme outer perimeter of my computer network is my router and it definitely is NOT open for anyone to crawl through.
> 
> A more applicable "house" analogy for me with this flaw would be if I left a stack of $20s in a lock box hidden in one of the 6 closets in my home. But the "flaw" is that the lock is broken on the box and a badguy can easily open it with a screwdriver - no key required. But to get those $20 he would have to breach my outer perimeter, crawl very quietly through the attic access panel to drop down (again very quietly) into the living area, get past my puppy dawgs without waking them, find the correct closet, find the lock box hidden in that closet, take the money then escape out of the house - all without running into me* and my Glock 17 hollow-points waiting to remove the entire back of his skull*. If he can do that, he can have the money.



Good to see some fellow proud gun owners for home defense.


----------



## R-T-B (May 19, 2019)

The difference here is these are silicon level vulnerabilities, that further more allow privilege escalation as far as SYSTEM.  SYSTEM is god, like linux root.  So you may have your glock, but the intruder is suddenly God, Jesus, Buddah, Thanos with the Infinity Gauntlet, [Insert infinite list of bullet immune dieties here]

Once he's in, you better reinstall or hide, depending on analogy.  Or you/your system may be a pile of ash soon.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 19, 2019)

trparky said:


> a web browser can be the doorway into your system


"Can be" and "is" are two different things. There will always be "what ifs" to illustrate exceptions and extremes to the norm. That does not mean it is likely to happen.
*"IF"* you connect to a network that has internet access, you are exposed and vulnerable at some level.


xkm1948 said:


> Good to see some fellow proud gun owners for home defense.


Not sure "proud" is the right word. I wish I never felt I might need one (and I live in a nice neighborhood). But when there are scumbags like these running around, not sure we have much choice.

I did not spend 24 years in the military defending our rights only to have others trample on mine. But I don't, for example, agree with most of what the NRA stands for. 

I sure am not ashamed to be a gun owner. But I did it the right way - I took several basic, intermediate, and advanced classes before I bought mine. I am fully, and willingly CCW licensed, and I have gone through several 1000 rounds at the range to get into and remain practiced. And most importantly, I am willing, able, and ready to use it - "IF" necessary - and won't hesitate to either.


----------



## Mr.Scott (May 19, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> Not sure "proud" is the right word. I wish I never felt I might need one (and I live in a nice neighborhood). But when there are scumbags like these running around, not sure we have much choice.
> 
> I did not spend 24 years in the military defending our rights only to have others trample on mine. But I don't, for example, agree with most of what the NRA stands for.
> 
> I sure am not ashamed to be a gun owner. But I did it the right way - I took several basic, intermediate, and advanced classes before I bought mine. I am fully, and willingly CCW licensed, and I have gone through several 1000 rounds at the range to get into and remain practiced. And most importantly, I am willing, able, and ready to use it - "IF" necessary - and won't hesitate to either.



Wow, there IS something I like about you after all.


----------



## bogmali (May 19, 2019)

Thread topic is HT yes or no and why.....that should be the only response and nothing more. Next off topic poster gets thread-banned


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 19, 2019)

If I were running VMs with multiple clients that handle sensitive information, yes, I would disable it because I have an obligation to keep VMs secure.  But I don't, so I don't.  HT doesn't expose anything that software running on the machine doesn't already have access to.  There's no security gating I need to worry about on my systems.

I expect Microsoft/Intel to come up with a solution and will inevitably get that.  Beyond that, don't really care.


My biggest concern is that software gets pushed to me (e.g. by Steam) that does side channel attacks but that's always been a risk.  MDS doesn't really represent any new threat outside of the context of VMs.  Malware gonna malicious.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 19, 2019)

My vote is no. Here's why; These vulnerabilities are very similar to the Spectre/Meltdown problems from last year. They are *VERY*(read near impossible) to pull off remotely and they are difficult even when an attacker has direct physical access to the system in question. Taking precautions is always wise, however it's not always practical for every vulnerability, and these latest series of them simply will not affect the end user any more than the previous lot.



trparky said:


> Considering that your web browser is essentially running untrusted code (in this case, Javascript) a web browser can be the doorway into your system. Granted, if you use an ad blocker you generally reduce this potential threat by a *significantly* large amount but the threat is _technically_ still there.


While that is true, a web browser can not be configured to run in such a way that would make it a gateway to take advantage of these types of vulnerabilities and become an attack vector.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 19, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> ...they are difficult even when an attacker has direct physical access to the system in question.


That's what is different with this one: HTT grants near real-time access to the other executing thread on the core (security layers be damned).  It's not just snatching a bit once in a while; it's practically a verbatim copy.  That's why Intel itself recommended disabling HTT.


----------



## Aquinus (May 19, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That's what is different with this one: HTT grants near real-time access to the other executing thread on the core (security layers be damned).  It's not just snatching a bit once in a while; it's practically a verbatim copy.  That's why Intel itself recommended disabling HTT.


The buffers still contain data from the last process that ran on the CPU... sometimes. So basically, you would have to be lucky enough for the CPU to switch contexts at just the right moment and on top of that, your process would need to be the next one to be executed. On top of that, the PoC doesn't always expose the hole and they suggest you force the CPU to full clocks and stuff to make it work. So, you would need to know exactly what to look for and when to look for it and the stars would have to align for everything to occur in a way for it to be useful while putting the machine into a state where it's likely under full load. So not only are you not likely to find what you're looking for, you're going to be letting people know you're doing something.

To me, this isn't a vulnerability, it's errata.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 20, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> They are *VERY*(read near impossible) to pull off remotely



Why do people still say this when it is not even remotely true?


----------



## Aquinus (May 20, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> Why do people still say this when it is not even remotely true?


Because for MDS, it is? In Linux you need to be logged in to the system as root to exploit MDS. If you're malware and you have root access, that's definitely not the low hanging fruit.


----------



## biffzinker (May 20, 2019)

No for me because Ryzen 5 2600X.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 20, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> Because for MDS, it is? In Linux you need to be logged in to the system as root to exploit MDS. If you're malware and you have root access, that's definitely not the low hanging fruit.



It is no where near impossible.

Edit:  Like I said before, I agree that this is not going to be the first hammer they pull out of their tool bag.


----------



## Aquinus (May 20, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> It is no where near impossible.
> 
> Edit:  Like I said before, I agree that this is not going to be the first hammer they pull out of their tool bag.


Just look at all of those software examples of real usage of how to exploit spectre v1 for malicious intent. 

Seriously, the difficulty of exploiting MDS for anything other than a mere PoC makes it not feasible as a vector for attack, even if you do have root access. Literally anything else is lower hanging fruit.

Exploiting it also means exposing yourself. You try an attack like this and the clock will start ticking very quickly before a sysadmin realizes what you're doing because they'll be wondering why the load average is abnormally high for this exploit to even work properly. So, good luck with that.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 20, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> Just look at all of those software examples of real usage of how to exploit spectre v1 for malicious intent.
> 
> Seriously, the difficulty of exploiting MDS for anything other than a mere PoC makes it not feasible as a vector for attack, even if you do have root access. Literally anything else is lower hanging fruit.
> 
> Exploiting it also means exposing yourself. You try an attack like this and the clock will start ticking very quickly before a sysadmin realizes what you're doing because they'll be wondering why the load average is abnormally high for this exploit to even work properly. So, good luck with that.



I'm not disputing the feasibility of the attacks.  I'm disputing the notion that you need physical access and/or root is nearly impossible to get.  As my edit implies, there are many, many, many paths an attacker would take before even thinking of using this one.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 20, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> Why do people still say this when it is not even remotely true?


Because some of us understand how these problems work and know enough to know that remote implementation of an attack that can exploit these types of vulnerabilities is not going to be anywhere near easy.  "Dubious at best" would be a better way of putting it.

Please keep in mind, there is *still* no known exploits in the wild for any of the Spectre/Meltdown type vulnerabilities. This fact alone should be enough of an indication of how difficult it is to use such an attack.


----------



## Aquinus (May 20, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> I'm not disputing the feasibility of the attacks.  I'm disputing the notion that you need physical access and/or root is nearly impossible to get.  As my edit implies, there are many, many, many paths an attacker would take before even thinking of using this one.


..and that is hard and this exploit is *harder*. That's my point. Why disable SMT when using the exploit is more difficult than circumventing root access on a Linux machine?


----------



## moproblems99 (May 20, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> While that is true, a web browser can not be configured to run in such a way that would make it a gateway to take advantage of these types of vulnerabilities and become an attack vector.



While we are at it, this is also wrong.



lexluthermiester said:


> ecause some of us understand how these problems work



Clearly you don't.



lexluthermiester said:


> anywhere near easy



Anywhere easy and near impossible are completely different.



lexluthermiester said:


> Please keep in mind, there is *still* no known exploits



It could take years to find them, and years more for it to be released.


----------



## Aquinus (May 20, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> While we are at it, this is also wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't recall seeing a JavaScript PoC for this and @lexluthermiester has a point. The feasibility of exploiting this isn't even worth the effort. How the hell do you think you know what the buffers contain data for every time there is a context switch to your application? You don't even know what the PC was at the time of the context switch so you can't even derive where the program was in its execution (assuming you're even privy to the assembled code itself.)

I would go so far to say that, unless the stars align, it's impossible to exploit MDS in a meaningful way. You would need to already have intimate knowledge about what's running and how it runs and even then there is no guarantee you'll be successful either. This isn't Meltdown.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 20, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> I don't recall seeing a JavaScript PoC for this and @lexluthermiester has a point. The feasibility of exploiting this isn't even worth the effort. How the hell do you think you know what the buffers contain data for every time there is a context switch to your application? You don't even know what the PC was at the time of the context switch so you can't even derive where the program was in its executing (assuming you're even privy to the assembled code itself.)
> 
> I would go so far to say that, unless the stars align, it's impossible to exploit MDS in a meaningful way. You would need to already have intimate knowledge about what's running and how it runs and even then there is no guarantee you'll be successful either. This isn't Meltdown.



For the last time.  I didn't advocate to turn off HT.  My very first post says so.  All I said was I was disputing that you need physical access.  Root is perfectly attainable remotely.  Never was I questioning the feasibility.  Never was I advocating to disable HT.  Is that clear?  Do I need to repeat it?

What I did misread was lex saying using the browser for THIS attack.  I did misread that.  However, javascript timing 'attacks' are used to map the memory system to help with these class of attacks.

Edit:  Here, this is even where I said not to disable it.  And practically no one needs to worry about these: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/do-you-disable-hyperthreading-poll.255674/post-4050041


----------



## R-T-B (May 20, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> I don't recall seeing a JavaScript PoC for this and @lexluthermiester has a point.



There is one.  I'll see if I can't find it.  Hold on.

EDIT:  Wow, ignore me.  You can take me at my word that it is possible, but the security group that has this POC is a closed group and I do not presently have permission to share.  As such, be a good skeptic and ignore me until I can ascertain whether or not this is sharable code.

I can say in my limited research of this Javascript is far less useful than I pictured (claimed via users anyhow, low throughput apparently).  You'd have to sit at an infected page for some time for this POC code I see to do anything useful.  But still.


----------



## windwhirl (May 20, 2019)

Nope, HT will remain enabled. Updates, firmware revisions and the like will be installed as they become available, though (I've never stopped them even when they seemed to bork things for everybody else and I won't stop them now).

First, I think it is unlikely that I'll get targeted by any kind of malware taking advantage of such vulnerabilities and that they'll succeed. 

Second, I do apply some security best practices even at home. 

And third, these vulnerabilities seem rather hard to exploit, even in unlikely favorable conditions, so I'm not gonna bother beyond installing updates and enabling mitigations.


----------



## R-T-B (May 20, 2019)

The best advice I have for people worried about this exploit is to visit trusted sites and close untrusted ones (hey look a porn popup lol let's click it!  How about no grandpa?) quickly.  Basically same old advice will work well for now.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 20, 2019)

Side Channel attacks can happen with JS.  MDS, maybe not but side-channel is side-channel.



R-T-B said:


> There is one.  I'll see if I can't find it.  Hold on.
> 
> EDIT:  Wow, ignore me.  You can take me at my word that it is possible, but the security group that has this POC is a closed group and I do not presently have permission to share.  As such, be a good skeptic and ignore me until I can ascertain whether or not this is sharable code.
> 
> I can say in my limited research of this Javascript is far less useful than I pictured (claimed via users anyhow, low throughput apparently).  You'd have to sit at an infected page for some time for this POC code I see to do anything useful.  But still.



Not MDS.  But a start: 




__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/7ob6a2

More:

https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2018/01/reading-privileged-memory-with-side.html


----------



## R-T-B (May 20, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> Not MDS.  But a start:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, one I have is on a pastebin posted to an old yahoo group (the irony of a security group on yahoo groups never escapes me but this time they did something useful) so that's not the same code.  As I said were it not a private group with a rights disclaimer I'd share right away.  But it's likely similar:  Javascript reduces speed to the point of it being far less useful.  That's really my takeaway.

Spectre I'd exepect to have been exploited via Javascript by now if it were useful, I think.  It must not be.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 20, 2019)

MDS appears to be able to use JS too.  Is it only theoretically possible viz JS?  I don't know.  Don't really care.  At least I provided some links.



> The vulnerabilities can be exploited using malware planted on the targeted devices, but some of them can also be exploited remotely from the internet via JavaScript code and malicious websites.



https://www.securityweek.com/new-class-data-leaking-vulnerabilities-impact-intel-cpus




R-T-B said:


> Yeah, one I have is on a pastebin posted to an old yahoo group (the irony of a security group on yahoo groups never escapes me but this time they did something useful) so that's not the same code.  As I said were it not a private group with a rights disclaimer I'd share right away.  But it's likely similar:  Javascript reduces speed to the point of it being far less useful.  That's really my takeaway.
> 
> Spectre I'd exepect to have been exploited via Javascript by now if it were useful, I think.  It must not be.



JS can be more powerful than people give it credit for.  It will be a scourge of the internet.  Scourge is a little strong but you get the idea...


----------



## R-T-B (May 20, 2019)

Yep, the code I have supposedly exploits MDS.  But it's over my head to the point they could be using Spectre and just full of BS.  I'm not a javascript guy, nor a security expert at the level of these vulnerabilities.  I just know MDS isn't a speculative vulnerability as much as a strange way of attacking buffers inbetween processors used for processs-sync, or something similar.  Still learning.

Random thought:  I wonder if MDS affects nonspeculative atom chips?  A few of them even had hyperthreading.

Netbook users everywhere can have even more power siphoned from their poor poor netbooks, if so.



moproblems99 said:


> JS can be more powerful than people give it credit for. It will be a scourge of the internet. Scourge is a little strong but you get the idea...



I do not disagree at all.  I hate it with a passion.  But, present exploits via it do appear limited in throughput.  I think.  I admit it's not my area of expertise and I am relying on comments from users of the code you linked and two comments on mine (largely a insignifigant sample really).



moproblems99 said:


> At least I provided some links.



I know.  I'm working on that.  I should've just shut up but I get excited talking about security for some reason.  I'm strange.

EDIT:  OK i have permission to post the code.  Some corrections:  It is psuedocode not javascript.  I am told doing this in java script would be "fucking trivial."  Cool language man, feels me with respect.



> /* Flush flush & reload buffer entries. */
> for (k=0; k<256; ++k)
> flush(buffer+k*1024);
> 
> ...



Frankly, I have no idea what this is or how to use it.  But I'm not an expert of this level.  Frankly I'm not even sure they are.

I personally would just reference this statement from the RIDL docs posted by the authors of the vulnerability:



> Building a RIDL attack from the browser requires a high level of control over the instructions executed by the JavaScript engine. Conveniently,WebAssemblyallows usto generate code which meets these requirements and isavailable as a standard feature in modern browsers. Wefound that we can use WebAssembly in both Firefox andChrome to generate machine code which we can use toperform RIDL-based attacks. Furthermore, all the majorbrowsers try to reduce the memory footprint of the We-bAssembly heap by relying on demand paging [60], whichwe can use to perform an attack along the lines of the one previously presented in Listing1. That is, we can rely on the validpage fault generated by our memory access totrigger an exception and spill the in-flightdata.



PDFs format weird.  See:



			https://mdsattacks.com/files/ridl.pdf


----------



## Aquinus (May 20, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> Frankly, I have no idea what this is or how to use it. But I'm not an expert of this level. Frankly I'm not even sure they are.


This is sort of the point I'm trying to make. Even if you do manage to leak a couple bits with Spectre v1, how to you intend to figure out what application that memory belong to and what it actually is? Also, how do you rectify issues with memory possibly changing between the times you can leak a bit or two? Afterall, you can't get more than 700 bits per second which is god awful slow. By the time you get the next bit, data may have moved, changed, or might not even exist anymore.

I'm not saying that these "vulnerabilities" can't be exposed, I just see no feasible way to actually use them to do anything beyond showing that it can be done. Also, you're example is in C, not JS.


R-T-B said:


> I am told doing this in java script would be "fucking trivial."


Tell your buddy to make a real piece of software that actually does something with the data from the exploit, I'll wait. Just because we have PoCs doesn't mean it's useful.


----------



## er557 (May 20, 2019)

The last thing I'll ever do why i still draw breath, is ever disable hyperthreading


----------



## John Naylor (May 20, 2019)

I have completly ignored all these "vulnerabilities".  Until I see a story about a user expereincing an actual problem, will continiue to do so.   As far as HT, my answer is yes and no.   We generally create and store various BIOS profiles:

Stock Settings
Moderate OC
Max OC w/ HT
Max OC w/o HT

Histrically.... say back with Sandy Bridge if you took the Max OC w/ HT and turned off HT, you would see a 7-8 temerature drop when stress testing.  This allowed you an extra 0.1 - 0.2 GHz OC before ya hit the same temperature limit.  For the last 4-5 years tho, I'm usually hitting the voltage limit before the temperature limit and tho it's not really delivering anything, still put the option as a BIOS profile option in case users wants to play with it.

When there's an actual documented report of someone exploiting one of these theoretical vulnerabilities, that's when I will pay attention.  As of yet, it's just fuel for fanbois to argue about which logo has more of them.


----------



## SoNic67 (May 20, 2019)

In my work computer I have HT turned off because Autodesk programs don't do multithreading (with small exceptions that are not applicable to me). 4 or 6 cores are sufficient, and with HT off, CPU gains a little more headroom on the clock.


----------



## EarthDog (May 20, 2019)

SoNic67 said:


> CPU gains a little more headroom on the clock.


Only with overclocking (you have an overclockable work PC? Coo!). At stock it doesn't matter... boosts are still the same.


----------



## GoldenX (May 20, 2019)

No. The biggest security flaw is on by default and can't be turned off. I mean Management Engine.


----------



## R-T-B (May 20, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> Also, you're example is in C, not JS.



I was told psuedocode.  Again he's not really my buddy per se just pilfering a yahoo group I joined ages ago that aparently doesn't know psuedocode from C.

I also found the source.  They ripped it from the friggin public RIDL pdf...  see example 1.  lol.

If I wasn't such a poor programmer (C# and Java is my world basically) I'd have caught that right away.  Sorry for the run around.


----------



## SoNic67 (May 20, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Only with overclocking (you have an overclockable work PC? Coo!). At stock it doesn't matter... boosts are still the same.


No OC on workstations. But I think boost for 1,2 versus 6 cores is different when all virtual 12 are used. Thermal and electrical limits. Xeon E5-26xx v2 (dual-processor).
Plus single threads go faster when they don't share the pipeline with others.


----------



## EarthDog (May 20, 2019)

SoNic67 said:


> No OC on workstations. But I think boost for 1,2 or 6 cores is different than for all 12.
> Plus single threads go faster when they don't share the pipeline with others.


Regardless if HT is enabled or not, your boost clocks remain the same.

You may have a small performance bump single threaded, but since your apps don't use HT, the resources aren't shared in the first place.  

I'm not hating/saying it is a bad idea for you to disable HT, but some of the reasons listed don't appear to be true is all ('headroom').


----------



## SoNic67 (May 20, 2019)

There are other apps running, like email,  and OS is doing it's thing too. 
So some multi core competition will probably occur, just from other sources.


----------



## EarthDog (May 20, 2019)

The Song Remains the Same.


----------



## danbert2000 (May 21, 2019)

If I turned HT off, I would be left with a quad core processor in 2019. I will eventually upgrade my CPU, but since I am on the DDR3 side of things, it would essentially require replacing everything. So I will wait, with my 4 cores but 8 threads, and be sure to keep my computer updated. If a virus makes its way to my machine, I don't think I'm going to have much more of an attack surface just because HT is on. And I'm not running random VMs next to my other processes. So the risks of using HT are not that big.

In the enterprise game, this has really screwed up multi-residence VM hosts. Amazon, Google, Microsoft have to now make sure all mitigations are in place, or they have to turn off HT and lose ~33% of their capacity. If I were them, I'd be considering buying some new EPYC chips in the future, or start selling VM space with a requirement to bundle HT cores together. Having multiple companies sharing a CPU was always going to be a risky situation. Sharing the same core is madness.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 21, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> While we are at it, this is also wrong.
> Clearly you don't.
> Anywhere easy and near impossible are completely different.
> It could take years to find them, and years more for it to be released.


You're welcome to your opinions, but until you can demonstrate a proof of concept *remote attack*, the opinions of experts in the field have greater credibility.


----------



## phanbuey (May 21, 2019)

John Naylor said:


> I have completly ignored all these "vulnerabilities".  Until I see a story about a user expereincing an actual problem, will continiue to do so.   As far as HT, my answer is yes and no.   We generally create and store various BIOS profiles:
> 
> Stock Settings
> Moderate OC
> ...



I don't think there will be.  Not because it's impossible, but there are just so many better ways of breaking in that it's highly improbable that attackers will waste their time like this.  And your software might get flagged and you get caught before you even pull off an attack.

Now... that might all change when the first artificially intelligent exploiters hit the scene, since they would basically have all the time in the world.

But for right now, I cant imagine any attacker using this for anything other than academic purposes, just to see if they can, essentially.

Regarding turning off HT:  The latest updates to prior MDS mitigation seem to have have incurred a cache miss penalty when HT is turned off.  If you look around there are 9700K users complaining of stuttering in many games and some performance loss with HT turned off (used to be the opposite case).  I can confirm this as well, HT turned off my chip can do 5.05 GHz with decent temps -- it now noticeably stutters in FC5 and FC5: New Dawn with those settings (SkX is weak with latency to begin with, so it compounds the issue) with HT turned on, the games are smooth.

The current prevailing theory is that HT allows for each thread to have it's own branch predictor, and by doubling the threads you give the CPU the option, in the case of miss, a greater chance that one of the other threads has the data you were looking for.  I'm not versed well enough on how that works to actually know if that's true or not; will get links to the articles if yall are interested.  I can confirm stuttering on i5 and non-HT i7 systems in those games after recent w10 updates though.


----------



## R-T-B (May 21, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> the opinions of experts in the field have greater credibility.



Lex, the RIDL whitepaper pdf from the "experts" does state javascript is a potential vector, FWIW.  I've been reading it.

There is no POC yet, true.  And it may even be impractical.  But they did state it is possible.


----------



## SIGSEGV (May 21, 2019)

No.
Simply because I use AMD Ryzen


----------



## phanbuey (May 21, 2019)

SIGSEGV said:


> No.
> Simply because I use AMD Ryzen



that 7700K in ur specs definitely looks like a ryzen


----------



## biffzinker (May 21, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> that 7700K in ur specs definitely looks like a ryzen


Two separate systems in specs.


----------



## phanbuey (May 21, 2019)

biffzinker said:


> Two separate systems in specs.



lol I know, i'm just messin with him


----------



## SIGSEGV (May 21, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> that 7700K in ur specs definitely looks like a ryzen



it's my laptop. i use my laptop just for running/testing a simple model before my ryzen do the rest. 

honestly, i wanna buy a new laptop powered by Ryzen 3750U/3550U for my wife.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 21, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> Lex, the RIDL whitepaper pdf from the "experts" does state javascript is a potential vector, FWIW.





R-T-B said:


> But they did state it is possible.


Einstein stated that time travel is technically possible too.


R-T-B said:


> There is no POC yet, true. And it may even be impractical.


Based on what I've read and understand, the way that JS would have to be configured in order for an attack vector to work would render JS unusable by a browser for general browser functions. Impractical indeed.


----------



## John Naylor (May 21, 2019)

SoNic67 said:


> In my work computer I have HT turned off because Autodesk programs don't do multithreading (with small exceptions that are not applicable to me). 4 or 6 cores are sufficient, and with HT off, CPU gains a little more headroom on the clock.



We leave it on as AutoCAD work generally requires the use of several other programs and activities.  These include:

1.  One or more spreadsheets for performing engineering calculations.

2.  Word processor for reading / editing specs and placing sections in Drawings

3.  Several web pages listing manufacturers dimensions details, downloading CAD details.

4.  Work generally doesn't follow typical "working hours so when the 12-1 lunch period arrives, most are in the "middle of something" and working when the incremental lunch toime backup runs.

Things is ... if the box can game, it's usually well into the "more than you need" category for AuotoCAD.  In 1999 AutoCAD was what determined componentry, now gaming does (assuming of course not doing rendering / anmation) .  Gaming cards perform far better than the Pro Workstation cards in 2D and 3D Drafting.  Back in the day, I remember spending $1k for a 7200 rpm SCSI drive to speed up AutoCAD's extensive  disk writes and w/o memory management tools you, were oft left staring at the screen for significant times.   But today, besides opening the program and opening gigantic files, the only bottleneck we have is the user's input speed.  But even that "isn't real" because ...

Step 1 - Open program / Open file
Step 2 - Review marked up drawing while Step 1 occuring

Im usually ready to proceed about a minute or 2 after the file is waiting for me.

We've yet to experience any impact on workflow .    Each box has at least 4 BIOS profiles choosable at boot

1.  Stock BIOS profile ... troubleshooting
2.  Moderate OC ... games that don't behave well
3.  Max OC w/ HT .... everyday usage
4.  Max OC w/o HT ... need that last few fps.

Have not see AutoCAD productivity change in any way regardless of the number of cores or the CPU multiplier.  Our users, me more than most  ... that's the only bottleneck.  We don't do any rendering.  The type of work we do doesn't need to "be sold" w/ pretty images (Plant design / MEP / Site design) .... but I have built boxes for those that do and they like the extra cores ... and workstation cards.


For curiosity's sake, I have tried disabling cores for various exe files ... Starting with all 8 cores assigned to the exe, I'' start with 8 and knock them off 1 at a time,   I have yet to see any program or game I own affected by dropping down to 3 cores.



moproblems99 said:


> It could take years to find them, and years more for it to be released.



By then, there's a 50-50 chance I'll be dead..... but by then there's a  99% chance my current equipment will be in a landfill somewhere.... if not, I'll worry about it then.  Whether or not you can create a js script that does damage is only the 1st step ... it has to get thru the ISPs, get thru our firewall, get thru malware protection and get past the user's brain.


----------



## MrGRiMv25 (May 21, 2019)

I haven't bothered disabling it, haven't had any virus's or dodgy exploits happen for years. I run my browser in a sandbox, and am fairly discriminative in what I download so shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## R-T-B (May 22, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Based on what I've read and understand, the way that JS would have to be configured in order for an attack vector to work would render JS unusable by a browser for general browser functions. Impractical indeed.



The paper states that stock browser configurations including webassembly are sufficient.  That's every modern browser as they ship.



MrGRiMv25 said:


> I run my browser in a sandbox



Breaking out of sandboxes is kind of what this does.



John Naylor said:


> it has to get thru the ISPs, get thru our firewall,



No, it doesn't.  The whole idea of javascript is it runs locally from a website you visited.

I am not trying to cause panic as I still feel with no in the wild attacks the risk remains low.  But a lot of this misinformation is addressed in the first couple chapters of the RIDL whitepaper pdf.  Let's not parrot blatant mistruths if we can avoid it.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 22, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> Let's not parrot blatant mistruths if we can avoid it.



I gave up.  You have to remember who knows everything and who doesn't.


----------



## raptori (May 22, 2019)

If someone want to avoid any performance loss what he should avoid updating ? Both Intel microcode updates and OS updates ? Does updating the OS alone will still cause performance loss? 

HT is always enabled.


----------



## R-T-B (May 22, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> I gave up.  You have to remember who knows everything and who doesn't.



I'm sorry, is this aimed at me?

If you want citations, it's all here:



			https://mdsattacks.com/files/ridl.pdf
		


Look at "Javascript attacks."

I do not know everything.  But I read the paper, which is a start (that's also how I discovered my yahoo group ripped their code from here, lol).  I don't understand half of it but some of these things are said in pretty darn plain English that directly contradict what's being said here.  And this is from the people who literally discovered the exploit.

I need to read the other papers.  That's just RIDL and it was a pretty heavy read so haven't done the others yet.



raptori said:


> If someone want to avoid any performance loss what he should avoid updating ? Both Intel microcode updates and OS updates ? Does updating the OS alone will still cause performance loss?
> 
> HT is always enabled.



You'd want to stay away from the new microcode.  So no new bios.  Eventually thought the OS updates will likely force it upon you via mcupdate.  I'd suggest to quit now, it's a losing battle.

And no, I don't really approve of that but...  it is what it is.  Unless your literally running something like Gentoo I can't advise ways to avoid this post Microsoft issuing a mcupdate.

Oh, by the way, they posted this on the homepage now:










It's one unprivileged process pulling a string right out of another processes memory in real time, in javascript, for those who don't understand what they are seeing.  It's done in a console but the docs tell us this could be applied anywhere.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 22, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> I'm sorry, is this aimed at me?



Nope.  You'll find the same thing.  Correct information doesn't matter.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 22, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> You'd want to stay away from the new microcode. So no new bios. Eventually thought the OS updates will likely force it upon you via mcupdate. I'd suggest to quit now, it's a losing battle.


So pretty much I’m going to need to update my system to an i9 in order to not lose any eventual performance from forced fixes.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 22, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> So pretty much I’m going to need to update my system to an i9 in order to not lose any eventual performance from forced fixes.



I don't think they could force ht off where is most of the impact would come from.  How the older archs like ours fair from these microcode updates vs newer archs I don't know.  I'm bailing for Zen 2 so it doesn't really matter to me.


----------



## R-T-B (May 22, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> So pretty much I’m going to need to update my system to an i9 in order to not lose any eventual performance from forced fixes.



I don't agree with forced fixes but I think this one does have the potential to become serious as it's better researched.  I'd take this one but leave hyperthreading on.  Seems the happy medium.

There may be a way to avoid it by using the VMWare microcode experiment driver (freeware) to forcibly downgrade your microcode.  I could make a package to do that if it proves to a be a non-signifigant vulnerability.  Give it a month or three and we'll see.  I won't do it now in case this does somehow blow up and I inadvertently contribute to the downfall of the western computing world or something...



moproblems99 said:


> I don't think they could force ht off where is most of the impact would come from.  How the older archs like ours fair from these microcode updates vs newer archs I don't know.  I'm bailing for Zen 2 so it doesn't really matter to me.



My next build will be Zen 2 as well (for a change of scenery if nothing else, lol).

Just no reason right now because even with all the fixes this thing still is fast enough for what I do at the moment.



moproblems99 said:


> Nope.  You'll find the same thing.  Correct information doesn't matter.



It does, to some.  That's all I care about.

That or I'm incredibly stubborn.  Guess which is more likely.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 22, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> The paper states that stock browser configurations including webassembly are sufficient. That's every modern browser as they ship.


Must have missed that, what page is it on?


----------



## R-T-B (May 22, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Must have missed that, what page is it on?



Page 10.  Right under the second paragraph of " Javascript Attacks"


----------



## Voluman (May 22, 2019)

Well, use your pc smart in general, not clicking any suspicious ad/link/attachement. Maybe you can use a scriptblocker to avoid js as much as possible, enabling only selected, trusted site. Than firewall, router settings. And if someone is after you, they can do it many other way, you can just slow them.


----------



## moproblems99 (May 22, 2019)

Voluman said:


> Well, use your pc smart in general, not clicking any suspicious ad/link/attachement. Maybe you can use a scriptblocker to avoid js as much as possible, enabling only selected, trusted site. Than firewall, router settings. And if someone is after you, they can do it many other way, you can just slow them.



While those good policies and all but the problem is XSS.  Numbers suggest up to one in three sites are vulnerable to XSS attacks which means perfectly trust worthy sites get taken advantage of by bad actors.  Your firewall and router likely won't help you either unless they have great packet inspection abilities which I would not bet money on.


----------



## EarthDog (May 22, 2019)

Rolls dice....... not snake eyes? Rolls again..... and again and again.....


----------



## MrGRiMv25 (May 22, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> Breaking out of sandboxes is kind of what this does.



Bah, I'll have to try it in a VM instead, would that be safer by any chance?


----------



## R-T-B (May 22, 2019)

MrGRiMv25 said:


> Bah, I'll have to try it in a VM instead, would that be safer by any chance?



Nope.  The whole thing is pretty leaky as far as WHERE data can be pulled.

The good news is mitigation seems way less harmful than turning HT off.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 22, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> Page 10.  Right under the second paragraph of " Javascript Attacks"


Saw that, had glossed over it before. I wonder if they've actually tested it..


----------



## R-T-B (May 22, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Saw that, had glossed over it before. I wonder if they've actually tested it..



There's that youtube example I linked...


----------



## Voluman (May 23, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> While those good policies and all but the problem is XSS.  Numbers suggest up to one in three sites are vulnerable to XSS attacks which means perfectly trust worthy sites get taken advantage of by bad actors.  Your firewall and router likely won't help you either unless they have great packet inspection abilities which I would not bet money on.


Yeah, i use a sriptblocker which is prepared for xss, generally block everything just enabling the most necessary (custom whitelist)


----------



## MrGRiMv25 (May 24, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> Nope.  The whole thing is pretty leaky as far as WHERE data can be pulled.
> 
> The good news is mitigation seems way less harmful than turning HT off.



Cool, I'll have to read about the vulnerability a bit more, I've not spent much time looking at the problems since the spectre/meltdown stuff happened. I suppose mitigation and safe browsing etc all adds up to being less prone to suffer from it.


----------



## arbiter (May 25, 2019)

I have no intent to disable HT on my cpu, its 6 years old and needs every bit of performance it can put out at this point as its starting to show its age in a lot of current games.


----------



## R-T-B (May 25, 2019)

MrGRiMv25 said:


> Cool, I'll have to read about the vulnerability a bit more, I've not spent much time looking at the problems since the spectre/meltdown stuff happened. I suppose mitigation and safe browsing etc all adds up to being less prone to suffer from it.



Not a bad idea.  Beware though:  It's easy to get lost in all the terminology.  People assume we all know all this CPU internals like the back of our hand in the whitepapers, etc.  Most people don't.

I should write up a "laymans guide" to this sometime...  if only I'd stop being lazy.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 25, 2019)

Why are people disabling hyperthreading? Are you not keeping your OS up to date? Are you not running virus and malware scans? Are you not using javascript blocker and ublock on sites you do not trust? The only way these "bugs" can impact you is if your system already contains a vulnerability that allows for remote code execution and if that is the case the attackers already have root access to your system. They don't need fancy CPU hacks at that point to steal your identity or lock your system.


----------



## aQi (May 25, 2019)

Half of the planet doesn’t even know whats HT.
Its a noob world Ms. Intel why dont you understand


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 25, 2019)

Easy Rhino said:


> Are you not keeping your OS up to date?


Keeping up to date involves accepting reduced performance. To some, that is not acceptable given that the actual risk of attack is extremely minimal at best and mitigating the problem through alternate methods is easier to do.


----------



## metalfiber (May 25, 2019)

I haven't updated my bios since before this whole meltdown stuff started and i'm not going to disable hyper. I may get shot but i'm but going to shoot myself...unless not doing those things is actually shooting myself...Ah, damit


----------



## MrGRiMv25 (May 26, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> Not a bad idea.  Beware though:  It's easy to get lost in all the terminology.  People assume we all know all this CPU internals like the back of our hand in the whitepapers, etc.  Most people don't.
> 
> I should write up a "laymans guide" to this sometime...  if only I'd stop being lazy.



I've read a few of the whitepapers at times and some of them can make the eyes glaze over.  

Nothing wrong with being lazy, it works being lazy if it saves yourself from er, working... that's for sure.


----------



## john_ (May 26, 2019)

Obviously no one would disable hyperthreading just for typical home use. 

The only way hyperthreading and Intel would be in deep, extremely deep sh...t, is if a ransomware of some kind take advantage of those vulnerabilities and we end up with thousands of users mourning their precious files. 

In the.... ancient time of 2003, I had no idea why I had just installed a firewall in my computer. My system was a single core Athlon XP, so, why waste CPU resources on something useless? Then blaster happened and I was reading about others having their machines infected, while mine was running fine. After that I always had some kind of firewall in my PC.


P.S. There should have been a double poll. One for people running home systems and one for those professionals who are responsible for systems with sensitive corporation data.


----------



## freeagent (May 26, 2019)

I have it enabled, but I ran with it off for about a week.. not because of this, but watching tv through my browser.. HT made it stutter for whatever reason. Probably an edge, or ie problem, since my provider no longer supports those two browsers for viewing..

Anyways.. looking at some of these comments.. I doubt half of you would notice if HT was on or off, especially if all you do is game. I actually picked up a little performance with HT off in some games, and regular day to day stuff. If you stare at numbers in Aida64, and other programs then yeah.. you'll notice.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 26, 2019)

freeagent said:


> I have it enabled, *but I ran with it off for about a week..* not because of this, but watching tv through my browser.. HT made it stutter for whatever reason. Probably an edge, or ie problem, since my provider no longer supports those two browsers for viewing..
> 
> Anyways.. looking at some of these comments.. *I doubt half of you would notice if HT was on or off*, especially if all you do is game. I actually picked up a little performance with HT off in some games, and regular day to day stuff. If you stare at numbers in Aida64, and other programs then yeah.. you'll notice.


Challenge accepted. Let's give it a try...

EDIT;
After a settings change and reboot, now running with HT disabled. Will try it for a week and see how it goes.


----------



## freeagent (May 26, 2019)

Sorry, I didn't mean that towards anyone in particular 

But if all you do is game, and menial tasks, you don't need HT and wont benefit from it..

Looking back in the thread, it seems there maybe a few guys who may benefit from it.. though its hard to say, I am still fairly fresh to these parts.

I didn't mean any offence, so no need to take any!


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 27, 2019)

freeagent said:


> Sorry, I didn't mean that towards anyone in particular
> 
> But if all you do is game, and menial tasks, you don't need HT and wont benefit from it..
> 
> ...


I like challenges. The whole point of using a T3500 was a challenge from a friend. And ya know, he's right. This system and it's X5680 have held up very well against my previous i7-5820 that had an OC.


----------



## R-T-B (May 27, 2019)

Easy Rhino said:


> The only way these "bugs" can impact you is if your system already contains a vulnerability that allows for remote code execution and if that is the case the attackers already have root access to your system.



Not before.  But with these vulnerabilities, yes.

I also have never run a javascript blocker but given these vulnerabilities I'd defintely do so if running around unmitigated.  Keep in mind that's hardly the only way to remotely execute code though.  Ever run a scriptable game with a server?


----------



## Aquinus (May 27, 2019)

The funny thing is that if malware already has root access on your machine, you're already screwed. Most of these vulnerabilities mean nothing for typical users. The real fear is: what if someone in a virtual machine on a multi-tenant server gets compromised. Each tenant easily has root access to their VMs and their ethics and security precautions makes this of particular concern. That is where the fear comes from. Any fear for consumers is vastly overstated in my opinion because if your system is already compromised to that degree, there are far lower hanging fruit that malware can go after. It's not like your tower has this extra level of VM isolation to keep the other things you care about safe.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 27, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> Most of these vulnerabilities mean nothing for typical users.


This latest one is a bit scarier. Been reading into it in more detail and the JS vulnerability is a real threat for common users. However, the assesment by the original researchers makes a few assumptions that are not common in most browsers. By adding a javascript-blocker plugin to most browsers and being very careful what to allow(enable) these vulnerabilities can be avoided. However, I have also concluded that disabling Hyper-Threading will completely remove these latest vulnerabilities ability to render an attack vector. This is why I accepted the challenge offered by @freeagent, even though it wasn't a deliberate challenge. So far, he's right, I'm not noticing a difference in common usage scenario's. I've run a few CPU intensive programs and the differences are about what Intel stated they were, 7%ish, but that's only in programs that make good use of HT.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 27, 2019)

arbiter said:


> I have no intent to disable HT on my cpu, its 6 years old and needs every bit of performance it can put out at this point as its starting to show its age in a lot of current games.


How do you mean “starting to show it’s age?” I’m only a quarter gen ahead of you and still have no game issues because of mine.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 27, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> How do you mean “starting to show it’s age?” I’m only a quarter gen ahead of you and still have no game issues because of mine.


I have to agree, I'm a couple gens behind and am only just starting to see some CPU bottlenecking with my RTX2080, and that is with no OC.


----------



## R-T-B (May 27, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> The funny thing is that if malware already has root access on your machine, you're already screwed.



The whole point of this thing is that it does not need root, to get root.



Aquinus said:


> It's not like your tower has this extra level of VM isolation



Sort of, actually.  Javascript sandboxing.  We've depended on it for a bit now.



lexluthermiester said:


> This latest one is a bit scarier. Been reading into it in more detail and the JS vulnerability is a real threat for common users. However, the assesment by the original researchers makes a few assumptions that are not common in most browsers. By adding a javascript-blocker plugin to most browsers and being very careful what to allow(enable) these vulnerabilities can be avoided. However, I have also concluded that disabling Hyper-Threading will completely remove these latest vulnerabilities ability to render an attack vector. This is why I accepted the challenge offered by @freeagent, even though it wasn't a deliberate challenge. So far, he's right, I'm not noticing a difference in common usage scenario's. I've run a CPU intensive programs and the differences are about what Intel stated they were, 7%ish, but that's only in programs that make good use of HT.



Disabling HT doesn't completely stop the vulnerability mind.  But it does make it basically impractical to use.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 27, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> The whole point of this thing is that it does not need root, to get root.


In a VM, true. In a normal operating environment, not so much. However, most power users(like myself) run in admin mode anyway, so it's a bit semantics.


R-T-B said:


> Disabling HT doesn't completely stop the vulnerability mind. But it does make it basically impractical to use.


Not based on what I've read and understand. Might be missing something, but this latest vulnerability requires an instruction function exclusively used by HT. Disabling HT effectively disables/eliminates the attack vector.


----------



## arbiter (May 27, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> How do you mean “starting to show it’s age?” I’m only a quarter gen ahead of you and still have no game issues because of mine.


there are games like division 2 for example or even AC: Odyssey. if something is even using 5-10% of cpu i can lose a lot of fps easy. that is even with a small OC with all cores at least 4ghz.



lexluthermiester said:


> Not based on what I've read and understand. Might be missing something, but this latest vulnerability requires an instruction function exclusively used by HT. Disabling HT effectively disables/eliminates the attack vector.


It may stop it but if you got older intel's like mine you are crippling performance of a cpu that is already starting to struggle in some games now if anything else is even using a tiny bit of cpu.


----------



## Regeneration (May 27, 2019)

I disabled HT on my gaming rigs. It appears my favorite games run better without HT.

You can also gain higher OC at the same voltage without HT.


----------



## trparky (May 27, 2019)

As I said before, I won't be turning off Hyper Threading. Not unless Intel cuts me a check and sends it to me in the mail for a feature that I paid a premium for. As for needing Hyper Threading, it definitely helps me since I tend to be a bit of a multi tasker. I don't have a dual-monitor setup for nothing here. I use all 12 threads of my 8700K so turning Hyper Threading off is going to hurt my multi tasking performance.

Will I be looking at AMD in the coming months? Yeah...


----------



## advanced3 (May 27, 2019)

freeagent said:


> But if all you do is game, and menial tasks, you don't need HT and wont benefit from it..



"Hello, I am BF:V or any other large open world multiplayer game."


----------



## Aquinus (May 27, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> The whole point of this thing is that it does not need root, to get root.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I challenge you to actually exploit spectre v1 or mds to do something productive if you're really that sure of yourself with that comment. I'll wait.


----------



## er557 (May 27, 2019)

advanced3 said:


> "Hello, I am BF:V or any other large open world multiplayer game."



Or any other modern game that is properly multi core aware, especially dx12 and dxr effects.


----------



## Regeneration (May 27, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> I challenge you to actually exploit spectre v1 or mds to do something productive if you're really that sure of yourself with that comment. I'll wait.



Hackers can rent access to shared servers (VPS) for cheap and "own" other customers, their websites, users, and possibly visitors with JS.


----------



## Aquinus (May 27, 2019)

Regeneration said:


> Hackers can rent access to shared servers (VPS) for cheap and "own" other customers, their websites, users, and possibly visitors.


Still waiting for a real use of this vulnerability beyond a PoC that merely shows that it's possible. Show me some software that active does this with spectre v1 or mds and I'll believe you. The reality is that there is no coordinated way to get what you want, it merely exposes what's in the buffers (for mds). Hell, even with intimate knowledge, the buffer data is likely useless you can determine what the program counter was at the time, but you don't have access to that register or the stack. So unless you know the state of the application and the code being run for it, you're likely not going to be able to make any use of mds. Spectre v1 has the same problem except that the rate that data is leaked is so slow, the data you're looking for can't possibly change memory locations or be changing in any way for it to be exploitable.

So once again, I challenge you to write an application that actually takes advantage of these vulnerabilities beyond a PoC. I bet you can't.

Edit: I will concede that what you're describing is the real fear, but I still think it's unrealistic.


----------



## Regeneration (May 27, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> Still waiting for a real use of this vulnerability beyond a PoC that merely shows that it's possible. Show me some software that active does this with spectre v1 or mds and I'll believe you. The reality is that there is no coordinated way to get what you want, it merely exposes what's in the buffers (for mds). Hell, even with intimate knowledge, the buffer data is likely useless you can determine what the program counter was at the time, but you don't have access to that register or the stack. So unless you know the state of the application and the code being run for it, you're likely not going to be able to make any use of mds. Spectre v1 has the same problem except that the rate that data is leaked is so slow, the data you're looking for can't possibly change memory locations or be changing in any way for it to be exploitable.
> 
> So once again, I challenge you to write an application that actually takes advantage of these vulnerabilities beyond a PoC. I bet you can't.



You write a code that logs ALL DATA to a file and then you create filters to search and find any 'useful data' from all the junk.

I wouldn't mind showing you, but I don't want the FBI (and IRS) knock on my the door at the middle of the night.

It is a serious problem for hosting companies. Most of the affordable services run on outdated Intel hardware.


----------



## Kissamies (May 27, 2019)

Nope. I don't pay for a feature to be disabled.

I'm kicking with Ryzen but I do have SMT on and will be always having it.


----------



## Aquinus (May 27, 2019)

Regeneration said:


> You write a code that logs ALL DATA to a file and then you create filters to search and find any 'useful data'.
> 
> I wouldn't mind showing you, but I don't want the FBI (and IRS) knock on my the door at the middle of the night.
> 
> It is a serious problem for server hosting companies. Most of the affordable services run on outdated Intel hardware.


That's a joke. You can log all of the data you want, but mashing the output of *potentially* leaked buffers won't do you any good because you won't know if it's valid leaked data or not, which is the other problem. The mds PoC proves it by saturating the buffers full of a *known value* and those known values don't always get leaked.

Also, the FBI doesn't really care because mitigations are already in place. The IRS certainly doesn't care because it's not their job.

Once again, prove it instead of making excuses for why you can't.

Edit: Also, if the FBI cared, the PoC wouldn't be open source on GitHub for all to see.


----------



## cucker tarlson (May 27, 2019)

counting 2015 onward,there's more games that do require HT on a 4 core than not.EVEN at 60hz.
if I'm to be completely honest,if a game requires HT to drive a high refresh display,more often than not it's gonna need HT for 60hz too.The cpu usage is gonna be causing problems with stutter even if the framerate is gonna hit the 60 target.


----------



## R-T-B (May 27, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> I challenge you to actually exploit spectre v1 or mds to do something productive if you're really that sure of yourself with that comment. I'll wait.



Watch the youtubes they provide.  Read the whitepapers.  The burden of proof here is on you to contradict them, not vice versa.  These are well studied, peer reviewed security papers making these claims.  You with all due respect, are a dude on the internet.

I could probably leverage my limited coding skills to do what you ask, but, I really don't need to especially given regenerations valid concerns above about not exactly wanting to author malware.


----------



## Aquinus (May 27, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> Watch the youtubes they provide.  Read the whitepapers.  The burden of proof here is on you to contradict them, not vice versa.  These are well studied, peer reviewed security papers making these claims.  You with all due respect, are a dude on the internet.
> 
> I could probably leverage my limited coding skills to do what you ask, but, I really don't need to especially given regenerations valid concerns above about not exactly wanting to author malware.


I'm not saying it's not a problem. I'm saying its usefulness makes it more like errata than being a vector for an attack because of how near impossible it is to use it for anything worth while.


----------



## Regeneration (May 27, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> That's a joke. You can log all of the data you want, but mashing the output of potentially leaked buffers won't do you any good because you won't know if it's valid leaked data or not, which is the other problem. The mds PoC proves it by saturating the buffers full of a known value and those known values don't always get leaked.
> 
> Also, the FBI doesn't really care because mitigations are already in place. The IRS certainly doesn't care because it's not their job.
> 
> ...



You output ALL data to files and then target keywords. For example, credit card numbers have unique prefixes that can be searched and filtered.


----------



## Aquinus (May 27, 2019)

Regeneration said:


> You output ALL data to files and then target keywords. For example, credit card numbers have unique prefixes that can be searched and filtered.


You see, I've already said that this is an issue in multi-tenant environments, although probably a little more hyped up than it really should be. It also runs on the assumption that the data is all valid that you're pulling back, unique code or not. You also need a little more than just a credit card number to effectively use it. I'm sure that all of this will be presented to you on a silver platter and that there will be a miraculous context switch at just the right time for you to capture this information, assuming it's all up for you to grab at the same time. If other aspects of the card aren't literally next up in memory, it might not even be in the buffer for you to use, forget the timing of the event. You're also talking about huge amounts of data if you're going to be constantly waiting and checking to see if the information you want is there. How often are you doing this in order to capture a context switch at just the right moment where the credit card information was being used? That's potentially a massive amount of data you need to store.

tl;dr: I think you're oversimplifying the problem. I wouldn't assume that the stars are going to align and that it's going to hand you want you want on a silver platter. That's a lot of wishful thinking. It's even more outlandish to think it matters for the typical consumer.


----------



## R-T-B (May 27, 2019)

Aquinus said:


> I'm not saying it's not a problem. I'm saying its usefulness makes it more like errata than being a vector for an attack because of how near impossible it is to use it for anything worth while.



The whitepapers kind of suggest far higher bandwidth than past exploits, but I'll fully admit I do not know what qualifies as "useful" here.  That I will concede.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 27, 2019)

arbiter said:


> It may stop it but if you got older intel's like mine you are crippling performance of a cpu that is already starting to struggle in some games now if anything else is even using a tiny bit of cpu.


Both of my main systems have Xeon 1366 CPU's. They are only showing there age with CPU intensive programs like AV rendering, for example, XMediaRecode and Corel Video Studio. Those are the only two that are held back. Everything else runs fine. With turning off HT, there has been an impact on the aforementioned programs, but nothing that is going to be terribly inconvenient.


advanced3 said:


> "Hello, I am BF:V or any other large open world multiplayer game."


Sorry, but you're wrong. Most(if not all) of those kinds of games are much more GPU dependent. Disabling HT on a Quad core or better is going to have little impact on game performance.


Regeneration said:


> I disabled HT on my gaming rigs. It appears my favorite games run better without HT.


This seems to be the consensus.


Regeneration said:


> You can also gain higher OC at the same voltage without HT.


This has always been true.


----------



## er557 (May 27, 2019)

all of that may be true for the short distance, or in few places like higher boost to some cores(more power envelope to work with), higher OC @same voltage. But in the broad view, with HT you get DOUBLE your cores with almost FREE performance gain and more horse power to work with. This includes multitasking, media encoding, virtualization, workstation environment. Certainly games dont run WORSE with HT on.
So it depends on one's needs and work environment.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 27, 2019)

er557 said:


> But in the broad view, with HT you get DOUBLE your cores


No, you get double the threads.


er557 said:


> with almost FREE performance gain and more horse power to work with.


It's not free, HT uses more electric power and the performance gains vary by program and optimization levels.


er557 said:


> This includes multitasking, media encoding, virtualization, workstation environment.


True


er557 said:


> Certainly games dont run WORSE with HT on.


Not true. There are some games that run worse with HT on. Granted, we're talking about very few titles and 2 or 3 %, but still, it does happen.


----------



## advanced3 (May 27, 2019)

I dare you try to play any BF 64 person multiplayer game and say that.


----------



## lexluthermiester (May 27, 2019)

advanced3 said:


> I dare you try to play any BF 64 person multiplayer game and say that.


Who are you talking too? TPU's reply functionality is very handy. Learn how to use it..

This should be of interest;








						How Screwed is Intel without Hyper-Threading?
					

Today we're exploring the impact disabling Hyper-Threading has on Intel processors. We've done this in the past and it's an interesting test, however there are new incentives...




					www.techspot.com
				



The gaming benchmarks for BFV are especially interesting, as are the FarCry results showing that increase with HT disabled. Very interesting indeed..

What that article shows is that HT Enabled VS Disabled seems to depend on the platform being tested. My older gen Xeons, for example, don't seem to be held back as much by HT being disabled.



advanced3 said:


> You still knew it was directed at you.


No I didn't. You didn't quote me, nor state my name. Learn how to use the reply system.


----------



## Regeneration (May 28, 2019)

Don't know how a discussion about HT ended up in a flame war, but whatever.

I tested HT on a hexacore CPU with the following games: CS:GO, PUBG, Hitman, Metro Last Redux and Final Fantasy XV Benchmark.

FPS was higher with HT off by 1-5 percent. On CPU benchmarks, serious performance drops, but hardly noticeable in real-world use. Encoding and compression takes ages with or without HT. 

If you're a pro gamer, or spend most of the time gaming... turn HT off and push the clock by 100-200 MHz.

P.S.
I'm curious about Battlefield V, but EA shoved 30GB update on me.


----------



## EarthDog (May 28, 2019)

Considering most games dont really use more than 4-6 threads, disabling HT couldnt hurt. But disable it on a quad with a game that works threads the fps will be lower.


----------



## Regeneration (May 28, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Considering most games dont really use more than 4-6 threads, disabling HT couldnt hurt. But disable it on a quad with a game that works threads the fps will be lower.



i7-5820K (6c/12t) and now after 30 minutes of DOWNLOADING, and another 30 minutes of FINALIZING.

Battlefield V without HT and extra 200 MHz (stable at the same vcore).
Avg: 61.067 - Min: 23 - Max: 113

Battlefield V with HT
Avg: 58.317 - Min: 41 - Max: 105

I'm running it again to ensure its not a mistake.


----------



## EarthDog (May 28, 2019)

Look a those minimums... ht on makes a difference there for sure. 

It's also bf v  which is tough to repeatably benchmark.

As weve seen in other testing like this most games dont benefit from more than 6 threads. This test would be interesting with a quad core with ht enabled/disabled. 

What res are you running this at?


----------



## mcraygsx (May 28, 2019)

I am more then happy with my 7700K setup for my gaming Machine.

Turning HT off really affects the few games I do play. With HT turned off frame time (ms) on RainbowSix Siege, WOT, FR5  and Elite Dangerous really takes a hit. Frame time is very important for me in  ranked R6 then anything else. I left it on because otherwise my CPU usage is almost always at 100% while gaming and it defeats the purpose of 7700K all together.

There is not much I can do except keep the system updated and perhaps think about overclocking this processor to 5.1Ghz (I have excellent CHIP) running on passive Noctua NH-D14 no fans. BTW I do have 1800X/Crosshair VI which was purchased as a collectors item when it was first release.


----------



## Regeneration (May 28, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Look a those minimums... ht on makes a difference there for sure.
> 
> It's also bf v  which is tough to repeatably benchmark.
> 
> ...



2K, ultra settings. 2nd runs for BF V:

Frames: 3528 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 58.800 - Min: 41 - Max: 109
Frames: 3724 - Time: 60000ms - Avg: 62.067 - Min: 44 - Max: 114

Guess the min fps drop before occurred due to HDD trashing.

Conclusion: For gaming PCs, it is better to turn off HT and allocate the unused "juice" for higher clock @ same voltage. Of course, you'll need a CPU that supports overclocking.


----------



## EarthDog (May 28, 2019)

Ahh, makes sense since you are benching at a GPU bound resolution. That said, I wouldnt make such a broad sweeping conclusion.

As I've been saying, most games dont utilize (not use) more than 4 threads. So it makes sense we can see improvements in some titles.

In the end, a more accurate conclusion would be for a hex core and the games you tested at a higher res benefit in some cases.

It would be more interesting to see this done with a quad where modern titles can use more than 4 threads. I assure you the result would be different.


----------



## Regeneration (May 29, 2019)

OK, I take back everything I said about hyper-threading and gaming. The benchmarks lie.

Like @advanced3 said, multiplayers run worse without HT. I just felt it myself.

It is better to keep it ON for gaming despite security concerns and benchmarks.


----------



## Metroid (May 29, 2019)

This is good for reference, 9700k x 9900k, practically only ht differs.






						CPU 2019 Benchmarks - Compare Products on AnandTech
					

CPU 2019 benchmarks: Compare two products side-by-side or see a cascading list of product ratings along with our annotations.




					www.anandtech.com
				




Hyperthreading wise nowadays does not suffer performance issues like used to, if you play simulator games that uses mainly your cpu then you must turn ht off, few games do that, no point turning it off unless you have problems with the heat, if you have heat issues I would advise disable hyperthreading and lower cpu vcore, you will see a considerable amount improvement on temperature.

check *Car Mechanic Simulator 2018* benchmark, that is the only time having hyper-threading is bad and this has not changed since hyper-threading came to exist, simulator applications/games suffer with hyperthreading.


----------



## EarthDog (May 29, 2019)

I would only advise disabling it if you have a hex core or greater. Otherwise, that can neuter performance on some games.


----------



## Regeneration (May 29, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I would only advise disabling it if you have a hex core or greater. Otherwise, that can neuter performance on some games.



It is noticeable even with hexacore and more.


----------



## EarthDog (May 29, 2019)

It varies by title according to multiple videos. The experience varies.

I can run it disabled (I do)......buuuuuuut I also have 16c/32t cpu, lol.


----------



## ScaLibBDP (May 30, 2019)

I'm a C/C++ Software Engineer and during last a couple of weeks I've been testing systems with Intel HTT disabled and enabled. Please take a look at 4 Video Technical Reports:

Intel Hyper-Threading Technology and Processing Power of a Computer System ( VTR-004 )









Intel Hyper-Threading Technology and Linpack Benchmark ( VTR-005 )









Intel Hyper-Threading Technology and Number of Processing Threads ( VTR-006 )









Intel Hyper-Threading Technology on a Heterogeneous Computer System ( VTR-007 )


----------



## EarthDog (May 30, 2019)

What's the takeaway of those vids?


----------



## R-T-B (May 30, 2019)

I'm sure it's that hyperthreading doesn't increase your silicons raw computing power.  He was saying something to that extent in another thread.

To which I replied something along the lines of "of course it doesn't, but it never was supposed to either, the whole concept is to increase computing throughput when multiple applications vie for the same core, and when one is stalling, the other can do work."

I think this'll be similar but we shall see.  Can't watch vids from here.


----------



## kaninjeter (Jun 17, 2019)

My take on this is that you still need malicious code to run on your machine to exploit these vulnerabilities, just like any other virus/malware? Or am I wrong?


----------

