ATI driver flaw exposes Vista kernel to attackers !

system · 2007-08-11T12:50:17.000Z

Don’t know if this was posted already but here’s the link …

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=438

Interesting read, glad i have Nvidia here .

DavidR · 2007-08-11T13:10:14.000Z

Most certainly interesting after the much hyped security of the Vista kernel by microsoft. Or perhaps it supports microsoft’s position that it didn’t want third parties having access to the kernel ???

bob3160 · 2007-08-11T22:44:43.000Z

Or perhaps it supports microsoft's position that it didn't want third parties having access to the kernel

We can thank McAfee and Symantec for that. They seemed to have yelled the loudest.

system · 2007-08-12T02:24:47.000Z

Indeed an intersting read, but I will always stick with ATI. I won’t upgrade to vista for awhile anyway. I will eventually want to play the newer dx10 games though… So I will have to upgrade I guess.

Mac · 2007-08-12T05:27:35.000Z

Negeltu post:4:

Indeed an intersting read, but I will always stick with ATI. I won’t upgrade to vista for awhile anyway. I will eventually want to play the newer dx10 games though… So I will have to upgrade I guess.

I dont think DX10 games will overtake tha market for a year or two.

They would not want to loose all of those customers on 2k/XP which is still the majority of the Windows installed base
DX10 graphics hardware is still rather expensive and even those who have Vista most like dont have DX 10 GPUs

DavidR · 2007-08-12T12:53:13.000Z

Originally it was touted by MS that the only OS that would be able to run DX10 would be Vista because of a few things, I think virtualisation was the main deal breaker.

However, the graphics manufacturers have had a problem getting their drivers, etc. to work, ATI were able to do it and Nvidia weren’t so that requirement was quietly dropped I believe. So it may be possible to keep XP and eventually run DX10 games.

As Mac said it will take time before the Games Manufactures feel there is a sufficient user base to make it worth their while, if XP can run DX10 then that would be a greater reason to push forward. By that stage M$ will be about ready to announce the replacement for Vista ;D

Excuse taking this topic off course.

Lisandro · 2007-08-12T13:04:04.000Z

DavidR post:6:

I think virtualisation was the main deal breaker.

Do you mean virtual Vista installations are more exposed to the risks?
Can you explain it a little bit more? Thanks.

DavidR · 2007-08-12T13:13:07.000Z

No, I don’t think it had anything to do with risk, I believe that the game was supposed to run in a virtual mode. I was reading an article about DX10 some time ago (I can’t recall where) and there was something about DX10 and vitrualisation but the graphics people were finding it difficult or impossible to get that to work.

Lisandro · 2007-08-12T13:42:28.000Z

DavidR post:8:

No, I don’t think it had anything to do with risk, I believe that the game was supposed to run in a virtual mode. I was reading an article about DX10 some time ago (I can’t recall where) and there was something about DX10 and vitrualisation but the graphics people were finding it difficult or impossible to get that to work.

Thanks David.

DavidR · 2007-08-12T13:54:37.000Z

The article was more about the M$ reasons why DX10 would only be available on Vista and it was though to be nothing more than marketing for Vista. One by one the author was knocking of the reasons as to why you had to have Vista and the biggest one was DX10 was supposed to be able to use virtualisation (or something like that). Since the graphics manufacturers were having such difficulty that requirement was quietly dropped, effectively meaning that DX10 could run on XP.

We will have to wait and see if that will be the case or if M$ will keep insisting that you need Vista to run DX10 games.

system · 2007-08-12T15:17:52.000Z

There was an article on the Inquirer about that i think … Found the link here it is: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40913

I think MS was talking mostly about the new display driver model(WDDM) as the main reason dx 10 will be for vista only.

Some more links:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb219721.aspx#Will_DirectX_10_be_available_for_Windows_XP
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/articles/447226.aspx

http://alkyproject.blogspot.com/ Interested to see how this turns out . ;D

And here you can read how todays dx10 card do in dx10 games . Not very promising.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3029

DavidR · 2007-08-12T15:33:21.000Z

It was a different article to your 1st Link, but the context was basically the same, the virtualisation of the graphics memory which Nvidia failed miserably. Having dropped the virtualisation as a mandatory requirement to optional then the major reason why XP couldn’t run dx10 was removed and XP should be theoretically able to run DX10.

However the more you read the more (I) you think it is a lets sell more copies of Vista that drove this.

Dwarden · 2007-08-12T19:06:37.000Z

AMD.ATI answer:

The market recently discovered a potential security vulnerability that could impact AMD’s Catalyst software package. After immediate investigation, AMD determined that a small section of code in one the files of our installer package file is potentially vulnerable. The AMD plan is to provide a new ATI Catalyst package no later than Monday, Aug. 13, 2007, that resolves this vulnerability. We strongly recommend that desktop ATI Radeon graphics users update to Catalyst version 7.8 once it is available on http://ati.amd.com/support/driver.html. AMD and Microsoft are also investigating additional distribution channels for this update. This vulnerability was not exclusive to AMD.”

so fix in next ~48hr

system · 2007-08-13T03:11:23.000Z

There are many cheap dx10 capable cards on the market now… Like the 8600GT is it? $114 at newegg.

system · 2007-08-13T08:14:13.000Z

Negeltu post:14:

There are many cheap dx10 capable cards on the market now… Like the 8600GT is it? $114 at newegg.

Yes you can get a dx10 card very cheap these days, unfortunately the performance with these cards isn’t that good with anything below a geforce 8800 and radeon 2900 . The geforce 8600 gts would be interesting to me if i was in the market for a cheaper dx 10 card but i am more than happy with my OCed 8800 gts 320mb. The prices for dx9 higher end cards like the Geforce 7950 and Radeon x1950 series are also very good ATM so it might be wise for anyone in the market for a new card to check out those aswell. A Radeon x1950pro for example can easily beat a Geforce 8600 gts in terms of performance and it costs about the same or sligthly less than the geforce. And you can still get it on AGP(and the xt version aswell).

Comparison x1950pro vs. 8600gts

Announcements