News Intel roasts AMD and Nvidia in its latest product security report, says AMD has 78 vulnerabilities with no fix planned, Nvidia has only high-severi...

[Admin]

Intel says that AMD and Nvidia had more vulnerabilities versus its products.

Intel roasts AMD and Nvidia in its latest product security report, says AMD has 78 vulnerabilities with no fix planned, Nvidia has only high-severi... : Read more

 

[MoxNix]

Putting it bluntly Intell is full of it.

 

[Pierce2623]

Sure guys, of course we believe you….

 

[TheSecondPower]

Aside from claiming its products are the most secure, Intel is also trying to take AMD and Nvidia down a peg. Now probably isn't the time for that.

Isn't it though? Intel is arguing that if security is important to you when shopping, Intel should get some points for it. As I recall, AMD similarly jabbed Intel during the Spectre days. (And I believe a similar though less-severe vulnerability was found in AMD CPUs just a short time later.)

 

[eichwana]

Can't take advantage of a vulnerability if the chip has burned out

 

[ottonis]

Psychologically, mocking competitors is a sign of own insecurity rather than dominance.

 

[subspruce]

Can't take advantage of a vulnerability if the chip has burned out

yeah Intel 14th gen Suicide Lake has no usable vulnerability because it is not usable.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

Isn't it though? Intel is arguing that if security is important to you when shopping, Intel should get some points for it. As I recall, AMD similarly jabbed Intel during the Spectre days. (And I believe a similar though less-severe vulnerability was found in AMD CPUs just a short time later.)

Ryzenfall? The attempt to make AMD stock tank.. nah

 

[Gururu]

Smells like AMD boasting about AI performance over nVidia and getting hammed for it. Stay in your lane companies!

 

[DS426]

Intel's report sounds like its narrative was either written by AI or child. "More = bad, less = goooooood!" Lol, there's so much more to cybersecurity than raw numbers of vulnerabilities, such as exploitability characteristics (ease of exploitation, reliability in (re)producing, proof-of-concept code, how common in the wild, etc.), CVSS scores, time-to-patch of the software/hardware vendors, and so on. Context is needed around each vulnerability. There's other nuances to consider as well, but no need for me to ramble on.

That paper become a marketing paper rather than a pure security one, which is a shame. Should Intel get security brownie points? Meh, I'll say sure for governments and large enterprises. Is it serious enough to overcome their performance, efficiency, and overall Total Cost of Ownership problems? That's for each individual and organization to decide, but at the consumer level, Intel's arguments are completely moot; how many consumers are running however old CPU's and motherboards with old BIOS versions, EOS Operating Systems like Windows 7 and/or not keeping up on Windows Update (yes, forgive me Linux crowd as I'm just scoping Windows users this time), and so on.

 

[husker]

To the naysayers who posted above...

You can't just say no it isn't and call that an argument

 

[ottonis]

Intel's report sounds like its narrative was either written by AI or child.

Most likely written by their marketing department. The marketing people usually have no clue on anything related to technology, nor do they really understand what they are talking about. But they are getting paid to make it sound really big and great.

 

[Shiznizzle]

Intel's report sounds like its narrative was either written by AI or child. "More = bad, less = goooooood!" Lol, there's so much more to cybersecurity than raw numbers of vulnerabilities, such as exploitability characteristics (ease of exploitation, reliability in (re)producing, proof-of-concept code, how common in the wild, etc.), CVSS scores, time-to-patch of the software/hardware vendors, and so on. Context is needed around each vulnerability. There's other nuances to consider as well, but no need for me to ramble on.

That paper become a marketing paper rather than a pure security one, which is a shame. Should Intel get security brownie points? Meh, I'll say sure for governments and large enterprises. Is it serious enough to overcome their performance, efficiency, and overall Total Cost of Ownership problems? That's for each individual and organization to decide, but at the consumer level, Intel's arguments are completely moot; how many consumers are running however old CPU's and motherboards with old BIOS versions, EOS Operating Systems like Windows 7 and/or not keeping up on Windows Update (yes, forgive me Linux crowd as I'm just scoping Windows users this time), and so on.

There are huge threads on Steam that came from the "Save Windows 7" brigade. They insist that they are still getting patches so on that basis the OS is still ok.

The OS, win 7, is officially dead and is no longer supported. It is not being worked on and anything you might get is most likely cumulative, pushed to all platforms, virus definition updates. Windows 7, a now long dead OS, is not getting any feature updates, fixes for vulnerabilities found. You are on your own. Not even newly found day zero's will get fixed meaning that you are now totally vulnerable.

At this point i;d say that %99 of linux distros are better for you then win 7 when it comes to owning a safe OS. Windows 7 is not safe. THey refuse to accept this

 

[Rob1C]

Glass house resident throws stones.

 

[redgarl]

Gemini AI...

"According to recent reports, while both Intel and AMD experience vulnerabilities, Intel generally claims to have a better security record with fewer reported vulnerabilities compared to AMD; however, this data can be skewed as Intel often presents its own statistics which may not be entirely objective, with some sources indicating that AMD might have significantly fewer publicly disclosed vulnerabilities than Intel. "

 

[rluker5]

This report is for 2024. I'm sure Intel is just expressing the parts that make them look good, but the numbers should be verifiable. If they are true then they are true.
Vulnerabilities being found by the public instead of in house is bad. Vulnerabilities having no planned fix is worse.

 

[rluker5]

Gemini AI...

"According to recent reports, while both Intel and AMD experience vulnerabilities, Intel generally claims to have a better security record with fewer reported vulnerabilities compared to AMD; however, this data can be skewed as Intel often presents its own statistics which may not be entirely objective, with some sources indicating that AMD might have significantly fewer publicly disclosed vulnerabilities than Intel. "

2019 isn't 2024.

 

[derekullo]

yeah Intel 14th gen Suicide Lake has no usable vulnerability because it is not usable.

Was going to say something snarky, but I can't top this!