Editing 1957: 2018 CVE List

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 44: Line 44:
 
:The x86 architecture (used in many Intel and AMD processors) is very complicated. Processors typically implement such a complex architecture using programs (microcode) run on a set of hidden, proprietary processors. The details of these hidden machines and errors in the microcode can result in security vulnerabilities, such as Meltdown, where the physical machine does not match the conceptual machine.
 
:The x86 architecture (used in many Intel and AMD processors) is very complicated. Processors typically implement such a complex architecture using programs (microcode) run on a set of hidden, proprietary processors. The details of these hidden machines and errors in the microcode can result in security vulnerabilities, such as Meltdown, where the physical machine does not match the conceptual machine.
 
:
 
:
:A more complicated instruction set is more complex to implement.{{Citation needed}} The x86 architecture is considered "CISC" (a "{{w|Complex instruction set computer}}"), having many instructions originally provided to make programming by a human simpler; other examples include the 68000 series used in the first {{w|Apple Macintosh}}. In the 1980s, this design philosophy was countered by the "RISC" ("{{w|Reduced instruction set computer}}") design movement - based on the observation that computer programs were increasingly generated by compilers (which only used a few instructions) rather than directly by people, and that the chip area dedicated to extra instructions could be better dedicated to, for example, cache. Examples of RISC style designs include {{w|SPARC}}, {{w|MIPS}}, {{w|PowerPC}} (used by Apple in later Macintoshes) and the {{w|ARM architecture|ARM}} chips common in mobile phones. Historically, there was considerable discussion about the merits of each approach. At one time the Mac and Windows PC were on different sides; owners of other competing systems such as the Archimedes and Amiga had similar arguments on usenet in the early 1990s. This "issue" may be posted by someone who still recalls these debates. Technically, the extra instructions do slightly complicate the task of validating correct chip behavior and complicate the tool chains that manage software, which could be seen as a minor security risk. However, the 64-bit architecture introduced by {{w|AMD}}, and since adopted by {{w|Intel}}, does rationalize things somewhat, and all recent x86 chips break down instructions into RISC-like micro-operations, so the complication from a hardware perspective is localized. Recent security issues, such as the speculative cache load issue in Meltdown and Spectre, depend more on details of implementation, rather than instruction set, and have been exhibited both by x86 (CISC) and ARM (RISC) processors.
+
:A more complicated instruction set is more complex to implement.{{Citation needed}} The x86 architecture is considered "CISC" (a "{{w|Complex instruction set computer}}"), having many instructions originally provided to make programming by a human simpler; other examples include the 68000 series used in the first {{w|Apple Macintosh}}. In the 1980s, this design philosophy was countered by the "RISC" ("{{w|Reduced instruction set computer}}") design movement - based on the observation that computer programs were increasingly generated by compilers (which only used a few instructions) rather than directly by people, and that the chip area dedicated to extra instructions could be better dedicated to, for example, cache. Examples of RISC style designs include {{w|SPARC}}, {{w|MIPS}}, {{w|PowerPC}} (used by Apple in later Macintoshes) and the {{w|ARM architecture|ARM}} chips common in mobile phones. Historically, there was considerable discussion about the merits of each approach. At one time the Mac and Windows PC were on different sides; owners of other competing systems such as the Archimedes and Amiga had similar arguments on usenet in the early 1990s. This "issue" may be posted by someone who still recalls these debates. Technically, the extra instructions do slightly complicate the task of validating correct chip behaviour and complicate the tool chains that manage software, which could be seen as a minor security risk. However, the 64-bit architecture introduced by {{w|AMD}}, and since adopted by {{w|Intel}}, does rationalize things somewhat, and all recent x86 chips break down instructions into RISC-like micro-operations, so the complication from a hardware perspective is localized. Recent security issues, such as the speculative cache load issue in Meltdown and Spectre, depend more on details of implementation, rather than instruction set, and have been exhibited both by x86 (CISC) and ARM (RISC) processors.
 
;NumPy 1.8.0 can factor primes in ''O''(log ''n'') time and must be quietly deprecated before anyone notices.
 
;NumPy 1.8.0 can factor primes in ''O''(log ''n'') time and must be quietly deprecated before anyone notices.
 
:Fantastically, this would be an unimaginable software threat, not to be confused with the even speedier, but future-bound, threat in hardware via {{w|Quantum computing}}.  
 
:Fantastically, this would be an unimaginable software threat, not to be confused with the even speedier, but future-bound, threat in hardware via {{w|Quantum computing}}.  

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)