Question on stock problems and wait times

[VenatoS]

That’s a very ignorant viewpoint. The same was thought before wannacry took down swathes of networks around the world. A zero day flaw is a zero day flaw, and it will be exploited, it’s just a question of when.

May be ignorant but it's a realistic scenario.
Hackers target people & companies that matter.

It will be fixed most likely before anything serious happens.

 

[SpyderTracks]

May be ignorant but it's a realistic scenario.
Hackers target people & companies that matter.

It will be fixed most likely before anything serious happens.

Urm, the flaws were first outed over 3 years ago and absolutely nothing has been done to address them.

Intel don't have the money to redesign the silicon which is what it would take to secure the chip. They've had their designs drawn up for a while (their current chips are based on 5 year old architecture), and they can't afford to drop it and work it from afresh.

Intel are dead in the water. Zen 3 is to be announced shortly, and I abolutely guarantee that Intel will lose out in the gaming segment also, and not just by a margin, but by a huge factor.

Intel have been refreshing the same design for far too long, and there's nothing more they can get out of it without thermal throttling. The 10000 series processors actually perform worse than the 9000 series, even though they've got more cores. Their IPC hasn't increased in 5 years.

It's just a dead end for them until they can get on 7nm in 2 years time, and by then they will have lost so much marketshare that I doubt they'll be able to afford the manufacturing costs.

 

[VenatoS]

Urm, the flaws were first outed over 3 years ago and absolutely nothing has been done to address them.

Intel don't have the money to redesign the silicon which is what it would take to secure the chip. They've had their designs drawn up for a while (their current chips are based on 5 year old architecture), and they can't afford to drop it and work it from afresh.

Intel are dead in the water. Zen 3 is to be announced shortly, and I abolutely guarantee that Intel will lose out in the gaming segment also, and not just by a margin, but by a huge factor.

Intel have been refreshing the same design for far too long, and there's nothing more they can get out of it without thermal throttling. The 10000 series processors actually perform worse than the 9000 series, even though they've got more cores. Their IPC hasn't increased in 5 years.

It's just a dead end for them until they can get on 7nm in 2 years time, and by then they will have lost so much marketshare that I doubt they'll be able to afford the manufacturing costs.

Very interesting speculations!

We will see how it goes I suppose, time will only tell.

 

[polycrac]

May be ignorant but it's a realistic scenario.
Hackers target people & companies that matter.

I think the problem is that they often attack the people who matter using a distributed network of hacked PCs belonging to those who DON'T matter!

 

[Oussebon]

I'll just add to the chorus re Intel CPUs. A few years ago, Intel were just the default choice. In around 2015 I don't think I'd have recommended an AMD CPU to anyone. At the budget range, a pentium or I3 6100 was just it. And at the higher end, obviously Intel had that nailed.

Since 2017, AMD have more or less killed the i5 CPU, and the R9 3950X has all but killed Intel's entire HEDT lineup single handed.

The i7 9700k and i9 9900k still have their niches, though they are niche.

Definitely cancel the order, and then reevaluate with all options on the table

 

[ubuysa]

May be ignorant but it's a realistic scenario.
Hackers target people & companies that matter.

It will be fixed most likely before anything serious happens.

Whilst it may appear true that cyber-criminals target corporations, whether for profit or pure mischief, I think your 'head in the sand' approach to Intel's pretty serious flaws is unwise at best and dangerous at worst.

Which is likely to generate the most revenue; stealing from the bank account of 10,000 security-lax individuals or targeting a corporation with 10,000 employees which has a more robust approach to security? Is it more profitable to install ransomware on the PCs of 10,000 security-lax individuals or target a corporation with 10,000 employees which has a more robust approach to security?

Cyber-criminals (like all criminals) want the maximum return for the least effort and with the lowest chance of detection. Targeting many individuals is a better option than going after the big boys who may well fight back. In addition, nobody wants to admit they've been dumb enough to be infected, either by ransomware or had their bank details stolen and their accounts emptied. I'd bet that most ransomware victims pay up and shut up, as do most victims of online bank fraud, so we have no idea just how prevalent the targeting of individuals really is.

I don't game and so I don't need the cutting edge performance that gamers do, so for me (with a background in very large mainframe operating system support and security) and running an Intel CPU, turning hyperthreading off was a no-brainer. However, for a gamer today looking to buy a performance rig I would unhesitatingly follow the advice of Oussebon and SpyderTracks who have proven again and again over many years that they absolutely do know what they're talking about.

 

[SpyderTracks]

Whilst it may appear true that cyber-criminals target corporations, whether for profit or pure mischief, I think your 'head in the sand' approach to Intel's pretty serious flaws is unwise at best and dangerous at worst.

Which is likely to generate the most revenue; stealing from the bank account of 10,000 security-lax individuals or targeting a corporation with 10,000 employees which has a more robust approach to security? Is it more profitable to install ransomware on the PCs of 10,000 security-lax individuals or target a corporation with 10,000 employees which has a more robust approach to security?

Cyber-criminals (like all criminals) want the maximum return for the least effort and with the lowest chance of detection. Targeting many individuals is a better option than going after the big boys who may well fight back. In addition, nobody wants to admit they've been dumb enough to be infected, either by ransomware or had their bank details stolen and their accounts emptied. I'd bet that most ransomware victims pay up and shut up, as do most victims of online bank fraud, so we have no idea just how prevalent the targeting of individuals really is.

I don't game and so I don't need the cutting edge performance that gamers do, so for me (with a background in very large mainframe operating system support and security) and running an Intel CPU, turning hyperthreading off was a no-brainer. However, for a gamer today looking to buy a performance rig I would unhesitatingly follow the advice of Oussebon and SpyderTracks who have proven again and again over many years that they absolutely do know what they're talking about.

It's also the case that if you visit the darkweb, they have csv files with usernames and email addresses from compromised accounts. State actors and causes will target companies, but general hackers will go for the easiest end point that's already shown weakness.

These lists that they buy just comprise of millions of accounts that have been compromised through brute force of a companies systems. These are usually public companies like Apple or Facebook etc, they're not business centric accounts.

These lists sell for about $20, they're incredibly cheap and sell by the thousands.