Fwd: Re: [iwar] News
From: John Allen
From: johna@llnl.gov
To: fc@all.net
Wed, 14 Jun 2000 07:30:54 -0700
fc Wed Jun 14 07:32:23 2000
Received: from 207.222.214.225
by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0)
for fc@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 14 Jun 2000 07:32:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by multi33.netcomi.com for fc
(with Netcom Interactive pop3d (v1.21.1 1998/05/07) Wed Jun 14 14:32:17 2000)
X-From_: johna@llnl.gov Wed Jun 14 09:31:53 2000
Received: from k2.llnl.gov (k2.llnl.gov [134.9.1.1]) by multi33.netcomi.com (8.8.5/8.7.4) with ESMTP id JAA01940 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:31:53 -0500
Received: from [134.9.12.138] (besor.llnl.gov [134.9.12.138])
by k2.llnl.gov (8.9.3/8.9.3/LLNL-Sep98) with ESMTP id HAA04289
for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2000 07:31:25 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: jallen@besor.llnl.gov
Message-Id:
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 07:30:54 -0700
To: fc@all.net
From: John Allen
Subject: Fwd: Re: [iwar] News
Fred,
I have not seen any additional information about this since this
posting. Seems like potentially one the biggest iwar stories one
can imagine. Any updates anticipated?
John Allen
>X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-364-958591417-johna=llnl.gov@returns.onelist.com
>To: iwar@egroups.com
>Organization: I'm not allowed to say
>From: Fred Cohen
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Mailing-List: list iwar@egroups.com; contact iwar-owner@egroups.com
>Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@egroups.com
>Precedence: bulk
>List-Unsubscribe:
>Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 12:23:36 -0700 (PDT)
>Reply-To: iwar@egroups.com
>Subject: Re: [iwar] News
>
>Per the message sent by deant@stsi.net:
>>
>> Salutations fellow list members,
>>
>> Reference the undocumented hardware instruction on Pentium class
>> Intel processors. Will your reliable source elaborate further on
>> this previously unused proccessor enhancement?
>
>We will be getting asembler code soon - apparently there are some
>exploits already being seen in Asia. Also - please note that the
>simulation idea isn't likely to be successful because the simulator will
>still only be able to simulate the hardware for the OS to use, and since
>the OS will still be vulnerable (Windows needs this hardware facility in
>order to work on a Pentium) it doesn;t get you as much as you might
>like.
>
>We are looking at adding custom hardware around the CPU to counter it...
>
>FC
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>IT Professionals: Match your unique skills with the best IT projects at
>http://click.egroups.com/1/3381/7/_/595019/_/958591417/
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>------------------
>http://all.net/
>
johna@llnl.gov
John Allen
*** I am registered with LLNL/NWC Entrust Email system ***