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...

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.)
 
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.
 
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: KyaraM
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. "

nvdmgl6mev841.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peksha
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. "

nvdmgl6mev841.png
2019 isn't 2024.
 
The low hanging fruit vulnerabilities have been found. The ones uncovered these days are obscure and need admin access/ physical access to exploit. The chances of them being used are slim (never say never) but if someone was able to use the exploit your pc/server is hosed already.

Google revealing that they have discovered a bug in the ųcode, think about this - the ųcode bug goes back to zen, first gen servers, it’s been there for coming up to 10 years. It shows how deeply the researchers are digging to find “insecurities”. I can’t say that I agree with not fixing bugs, it may be that they are all but impossible to fix or it might be that they are all but impossible to exploit. I don’t know enough to say. Intel or AMD we will have to trust their judgement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ottonis
This must be satire, Intel was destroyed by the Spectre flaws, and that’s how they had such a great performance lead. Once it was public knowledge they had to re-think their core designs, and this is how they ended up what they are today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peksha