WELCOME

As it turns out, these assumptions were indeed wrong—even though

June 14, 2018 by Elizabeth Duran

As it turns out, these assumptions were indeed wrong—even though these assumptions would remain valid during their lifetime, and they would likely continue to do so if the processor ever made any changes to them.

The original attack against Microsoft's Windows Server (and most recently Windows 7), using the term "Spyware-like" for the spyware that was found on Intel machines running on the same machines, was widely publicized. But that was in 2004, and before the security community had much to say about it. The latest attack, using the name "Sprint-like," was launched a year before Intel introduced its own spyware-like attack. Both attacks use Intel Pentium G3258 processors, which are used in the Surface Pro 3 and Surface Pro 4.

Now, while there are no new details on this attack, this new attack seems to be a new type of spyware, an attack that was previously unknown. But it's also a new design, a design that was unknown to the security community at the time.

The new attack was dubbed "Dirty-Fluid-Like," and was a very different attack from the previous one:

The hack was inspired by the attack on the Windows server from December 2004, which had been described as an attempt to "kill" the entire system. The system was apparently infected by a common malware, Windows 7, that was infecting a large number of system components. "A number of people, including some of my coworkers, have been working on this hack for many months," says the source, who asked not to be named. "I wanted to make it clear that it had nothing to do with Windows 7."

When the system was infected by the Dirty-Fluid-Like attack, it was only vulnerable to three separate attacks—that is, it was not the first known attack that used a Spyware-like variant.

Then, in January 2005, the two versions of Windows 7 went off, and a similar Dirty-Fluid-Like attack was discovered.

The Dirty-Fluid-Like attack used an unknown combination of the Dirty and the Dirty-Fluid-Like variants, but the two Dirty-Fluid variants were not the same. It had a much higher frequency, which meant that even the most advanced versions of Windows used the same set of Dirty-Fluid-Like variants; however, Dirty-Fluid-Like was actually less aggressive,