The Downfall vulnerability that affects many of the Intel CPUs in recent years has caused people to talk and it seems that it will continue to do so, because the mitigations that we already saw a week and a half ago, and the results of applying them, are so serious that more and more users and companies they are putting the cry in the sky. For this reason, a law firm is already studying the case to personify itself as an accusation on behalf of anyone who wants to join the cause. Will this lawsuit against Intel for Downfall go ahead?
Be Bathaee Dunne LPP apparently the one who will take the case. The law firm is studying a class action lawsuit after being consulted by a huge number of clients, who seem to end up coming together to make force and noise to attract more affected users. What problems are raised in this cause?
Downfall and the lawsuit that can be really expensive for Intel
Well, the firm assures that it is studying the lawsuit with the aim that Intel is obliged to compensate customers for “Loss of value, reduced performance, security issues, and other damages resulting from the outage of this vulnerability.”
And they do not lack reason. What we have already seen is that the average performance that is lost when installing the mitigations for said vulnerability is a 39%, reaching -50% in certain circumstances, which is a problem for many. Given that speculative execution is under attack once again, and that patching a vulnerability that leaves the door open for data prediction or private operations within the CPU is complex and expensive, Intel does not have the to win apparently.
And less if we take into account another important detail: the number of CPUs affected. It does not matter if they are desktop or server, it encompasses from the sixth generation to the eleventh, which means billions of processors that will lose performance after patches and updates. Obviously, this leaves a similar or similar number of users who will see their performance drop under some circumstances and software. Others, the majority, will not notice anything because they are specific scenarios.
Could Microsoft have opened the door to turning off mitigations at the request of Intel?
We saw him just a few days ago. In a strange move Microsoft explained how we could disable patches that soft-fixed the vulnerability at the cost of performance. The theory can leave us some pretty accurate conclusions, since Redmond could have explained the steps to disable it at Intel’s request, a move that would recover performance at the cost of keeping the vulnerability active.
The problem is that you have to choose: either performance or vulnerability. Users who paid for their CPU now find that in specific uses where the vulnerability was evident they have lost a significant percentage of performance, but they they paid 100% of the product with specific features.
It’s not so much a user problem, but more of a business one, because it leaves companies insecure about something as crucial as data and speculative execution, or it kills much of their performance, even momentarily or at certain times of the year. day. Also, taking into account that AMD with Inception suffers the same evil and problem, will users and companies also sEsports Extrasup to sue AMD, taking advantage of this lawsuit against Intel, which is already being studied for Downfall? We will see…