"Downfall" Vulnerability in Intel Processors and AMD’s "Inception" Vulnerability

[Dr. Dro]

Thanks for that WikiChip link and you are right, I was able to find that same page and information with the help of my friend, Bing Google. But it wasn't exactly straight forward. If I wasn't fairly practiced at figuring out what to enter in search engines, and then how to weed through search results, I might have ended up more confused than when I started.

For example, I came upon this Intel link, Intel Processor Names and Numbers, but it says "S" stands for "Special edition". So does this. My processor is nothing special - unless they mean it is similar to how some kids ride the "special" bus! How about How to Identify My Intel Processor - no luck there. So even the processor itself is not reporting to the OS that it is a "S".

If you look at your WikiChip source which you call a "solid source", and follow the link for this processor, the Core i5-6600, the information provided is indeed, very extensive. And it does show on the right side, "Skylake S" for its "Core Name".

However, where did WikiChip get its information? Every link on that page takes you right back to another WikiChip page. They keep citing themselves. I am not criticizing WikiChip, I just think it sad there apparently is no Intel source to cite.

So I believe my point is still valid. Why do we users/consumers have to rely on 3rd party sources instead of Intel itself, whether or not our specific CPU is affected by some bug or vulnerability? We shouldn't have too. That's why I would like to see a "simple" little tool users can run that fully identifies their processors, and whether or not there are any firmware updates/patches for it.

Intel's page doesn't address CPU naming scheme for CPUs that are considered obsolete anymore (that being 7th gen and earlier). The information Intel's page has been changed to reflect modern CPUs that the company believes you should be using by now. To clarify, these are the most common:

Suffixless CPUs (such as your i5-6600) are standard wattage, standard performance processors which have graphics enabled, with a locked multiplier. "Plain Jane" chips, so to speak.

Sometimes, suffixless CPUs will include support for a business feature that is intentionally made unavailable on the equivalent unlocked model.​

​

F CPUs (for example, i7-10700F) are the same as above, but they have the iGPU is defective and fused off. For this reason, they require discrete graphics.
K CPUs have their multiplier is unlocked for overclocking. CPUs which combine K and F suffixes (eg. i5-9600KF) are both unlocked and require discrete graphics.
S suffix was used on earlier generations to denominate a power efficient variant (eg. i7-4770S, a reduced wattage variant of the i7-4770 with a 65 W TDP instead of 84 W).

Beginning with 9th gen Core, it is used to denominate a Special Edition model: only three Core i9 processor models have been bestowed this designation, the 9th Gen i9-9900KS, 12th Gen 12900KS and 13th Gen 13900KS. They represent the fastest products that Intel offers with each generation. They are high-wattage parts and operate at the highest frequencies afforded by any chips of their generation, carved out of the very best hand-picked silicon and binned for the highest performance possible. Due to this nature, they are limited run processors, which makes this an uncommon suffix that you simply won't come across unless you're looking at latest generation gaming PCs.​

T suffix is used for low power processors (eg. i9-13900T, 35 W TDP variant of the i9-13900).

Due to their very low TDP, the clock speed usually takes a significant hit, but this enables their use in some very niche types of builds like mini PCs, SFFs, and the sort where cooling is very limited​

​

Y suffix is used for ULV (ultra-low-voltage) CPUs. You'll usually find these in subnotebooks and tablets, with a TDP ranging from 3 to 7 W, but there are a few socketed desktop CPUs with similar denomination (such as the Xeon E3 CPUs with an L suffix).

X suffix denominates the old Extreme Edition line. Needs no explanation, but they have been supplanted by the KS CPUs. They haven't made an Extreme Edition CPU since the 10th gen i9-10980XE. It's the one suffix that is safe to ignore until Intel releases a new HEDT platform, these CPUs are by all means "high performance", but obsolete at this point in time. Still the best for their respective sockets, though.

 

[AnotherReader]

I'm a bit confused by this sentence. Does it mean only someone whom has physical access to your PC can access this data?

In addition to what @Ware said, this is also a concern for cloud providers though if the greedy bas***ds would stop scheduling unrelated code onto the same core, it wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Intel's page doesn't address CPU naming scheme for CPUs that are considered obsolete anymore (that being 7th gen and earlier). The information Intel's page has been changed to reflect modern CPUs that the company believes you should be using by now. To clarify, these are the most common:

Suffixless CPUs (such as your i5-6600) are standard wattage, standard performance processors which have graphics enabled, with a locked multiplier. "Plain Jane" chips, so to speak.

Sometimes, suffixless CPUs will include support for a business feature that is intentionally made unavailable on the equivalent unlocked model.

This is getting further and further off topic (for which I am in part to blame). And you are getting way into specifics when that was not my intention at all. I fully understand the specifics for my i5-6600. Not my point for asking for a little, "simple" tool for users to check to see if their processor's microcode needed to be updated.

As far as the Intel page addressing 7th gen and earlier, note there is a 2nd tab covering 2018 - 2021 affected processors.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I can't be the only one sick of these trendy marketable names for hardware exploits that are meant to sound scaaaawwwwy and the end of the world, the sole purpose of these is generating clicks... like the one affecting Zen 2 that they're calling "Zenbleed", come on...

Be realistic.

The catchy names serve many purposes.

They make the research paper and the fault memorable and easy to reference.

It would be a shitstorm if they JUST used the official naming CVN##### blah blah blah.

At least Downfall and Heartbeef are easy to remember.

 

[R-T-B]

However, where did WikiChip get its information? Every link on that page takes you right back to another WikiChip page. They keep citing themselves. I am not criticizing WikiChip, I just think it sad there apparently is no Intel source to cite.

Your talking largely about code names for product lines so yeah citations there are going to be tough.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

In addition to what @Ware said, this is also a concern for cloud providers though if the greedy bas***ds would stop scheduling unrelated code onto the same core, it wouldn't be an issue.

So are you guys saying the words "who share the same computer" DOESN'T mean the attacker has to have physical access to your PC, and use this intrusion remotely? BTW, I should mention I'm still on W10 and disable ALL telemetry, especially things like remote assistance.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Your talking largely about code names for product lines

LOL

"Product" lines? And here I thought we were talking about "model" names. Or was it "line" names? Or "Processor" lines? Or maybe "Family" names? I know, it was Processor "Number". Or was it "Suffix"?

No, it was "Product Collection".

Note I did not make up any of those. They are all descriptions used by Intel in the various Intel links above to identify Intel processors.

So are you guys saying the words "who share the same computer" DOESN'T meant the attacker has to have physical access to your PC?

Or at least remote access already established - at least that is my understanding.

 

[AnotherReader]

So are you guys saying the words "who share the same computer" DOESN'T meant the attacker has to have physical access to your PC?

It just means that the attacker is able to run programs on your computer. Typically it would be in a cloud context. For a home user, attacks through Javascript are an unlikely possibility.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

It just means that the attacker is able to run programs on your computer.

Well, still not understanding the "who share the same computer" bit? That is the part that is baffling to me. I share my PC with no one, remotely or physically, but it appears you are now saying that doesn't matter.

 

[Bill_Bright]

"who share the same computer" bit? That is the part that is baffling to me. I share my PC with no one,

It means if you share your computer with your spouse/roommate/dog and they have their own accounts on that computer, if a badguy compromises their account on that computer, they might be able to access your data. But since you are the only user of that computer, you have nothing to worry about - at least not with this vulnerability.

 

[R-T-B]

LOL

"Product" lines? And here I thought we were talking about "model" names. Or was it "line" names? Or "Processor" lines? Or maybe "Family" names? I know, it was Processor "Number". Or was it "Suffix"?

No, it was "Product Collection".

Note I did not make up any of those. They are all descriptions used by Intel in the various Intel links above to identify Intel processors.


Or at least remote access already established - at least that is my understanding.

Did not dispute its confusing lol.

For a home user, attacks through Javascript are an unlikely possibility.

Depends on how careful you are with browsing. But really only the meltdown variants (Intel largely) are worth worrying about there.

 

[AnotherReader]

Did not dispute its confusing lol.


Depends on how careful you are with browsing. But really only the meltdown variants (Intel largely) are worth worrying about there.

I agree; exploitation through browsing is extremely unlikely given how threads are usually scheduled by most operating systems.

 

[wNotyarD]

"Product" lines? And here I thought we were talking about "model" names. Or was it "line" names? Or "Processor" lines? Or maybe "Family" names? I know, it was Processor "Number". Or was it "Suffix"?

No, it was "Product Collection".

Note I did not make up any of those. They are all descriptions used by Intel in the various Intel links above to identify Intel processors.

Almost looks like those writing classes where the teacher doesn't want too much repetition of the same words, making synonyms a necessity.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Almost looks like those writing classes where the teacher doesn't want too much repetition of the same words, making synonyms a necessity.

And that's fine when creating works of fiction. But in every "technical" writing course I had to take in the Air Force and for my degrees, consistency in terminology was something they wanted and looked for.

 

[wNotyarD]

And that's fine when creating works of fiction. But in every "technical" writing course I had to take in the Air Force and for my degrees, consistency in terminology was something they wanted and looked for.

As a technician myself, I agree wholeheartedly. Data and spec sheets, as well as whitepapers, MUST be concise and consistent throughout.

 

[R-T-B]

As a technician myself, I agree wholeheartedly. Data and spec sheets, as well as whitepapers, MUST be concise and consistent throughout.

To be fair there are CVEs and such for these. But catchy names, ya know?

 

[wNotyarD]

To be fair there are CVEs and such for these. But catchy names, ya know?

Bill was complaining about how Intel doesn't consistently call its product lines throughout their documentation.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

It just means that the attacker is able to run programs on your computer. Typically it would be in a cloud context. For a home user, attacks through Javascript are an unlikely possibility.

Well, since 1) I'm the only one who physically uses my PC 2) don't have ANY telemetry enabled, including remote access, and 3) use a VPN, I doubt any of this applies to me.

 

[AnotherReader]

Well, since 1) I'm the only one who physically uses my PC 2) don't have ANY telemetry enabled, including remote access, and 3) use a VPN, I doubt any of this applies to me.

Telemetry has nothing to do with it and a VPN wouldn't protect you if you downloaded malware, but home users are unlikely to be affected.

 

[Space Lynx]

Intel's Downfall mitigations take a significant toll on CPU performance, early testing reveals

Rob published a comprehensive report on Downfall yesterday. For the sake of brevity, I'll simply direct you to his article should you need to get up to...

www.techspot.com

Does this effect the raptor lake refresh coming in October? The fix patch might ruin their numbers they were expecting

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Telemetry has nothing to do with it and a VPN wouldn't protect you if you downloaded malware, but home users are unlikely to be affected.

So remote assistance has no telemetry to it? I find that hard to believe. LOL

Seriously though, what I meant is enabling remote assistance is potentially more harmful than telemetry, since you're manually enabling someone to literally take over your PC. Aside from that, any hacker that can exploit RA I think could only do so IF you had it enabled.

And no, I never download anything with malware, but I scan at least weekly and those scans verify that.

 

[R-T-B]

So remote assistance has no telemetry to it? I find that hard to believe. LOL

It does but that still has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. Things can have telemetry and have no effect here.

Intel's Downfall mitigations take a significant toll on CPU performance, early testing reveals

Rob published a comprehensive report on Downfall yesterday. For the sake of brevity, I'll simply direct you to his article should you need to get up to...

www.techspot.com

Does this effect the raptor lake refresh coming in October? The fix patch might ruin their numbers they were expecting

I doubt they have mitigations in hardware if that's what you mean. At most it'll be a firmware fix that hurts their numbers, yeah. They may provide a means to "opt out" of the mitigations to claim the performance crown anyways, who knows.

 

[Super Firm Tofu]

I doubt they have mitigations in hardware if that's what you mean. At most it'll be a firmware fix that hurts their numbers, yeah. They may provide a means to "opt out" of the mitigations to claim the performance crown anyways, who knows.

Did I miss something that changed from this only applying to 6th through 11th gen?

 

[R-T-B]

Did I miss something that changed from this only applying to 6th through 11th gen?

That was for the original vulnerability, which was meltdown.

This is a new variant of meltdown (called "Downfall") and it applies up and down the stack to nearly everything intel right now.

 

[Space Lynx]

That was for the original vulnerability, which was meltdown.

This is a new variant of meltdown (called "Downfall") and it applies up and down the stack to nearly everything intel right now.

That's pretty messed up. 8800x3d is now locked in 100% as my upgrade path, I was considering arrow lake next fall, but ehintel just seems to have one to many security issues over the years.