Archive for August, 2010

How Much Smaller Can Chips Go?

Wednesday, August 18th, 2010

Seven of the finest minds Intel can muster are lined up on stage, ready to take questions from a pack of visibly intimidated European journalists.

These are Intel fellows – the highest rank of technical merit afforded to the company’s engineers – whose CVs are stuffed with PhDs and patents in the places that most people put fillers such as “excellent typing skills” and “interest in badminton”.

Finally, one of the press pack plucks up the courage to ask a question. Is Moore’s Law – Gordon Moore’s legendary prediction that the number of transistors on a processor will double every two years – dead? One or two of the fellows chuckle politely, others are visibly irritated. Almost all are eager to grab the microphone and put the impertinent questioner straight.

One by one, they deliver measured and witty responses. “The number of people predicting the end of Moore’s Law doubles every two years,” quips the Scandinavian Tryggve Fossum, before American fellow Karl Kempf delivers a cutting dénouement. “The first microprocessor had 2,300 transistors, now we have processors with 2.3 billion transistors. That’s Moore’s Law. That’s what we do.”

Indeed, it’s what Intel’s been doing for more than 30 years. Now, the company is preparing to defy the laws of physics to “print” its next generation of chips. Chips so crammed with transistors that the machinery is working with sub-atomic precision to make them.

But when you’re already working with transistors a fraction of the size of a virus cell, how much further can you push the miniaturisation before the plucky journalist’s predicted demise of Moore’s Law comes true?

The complexity of a modern processor is almost beyond comprehension. A working 1GHz core on ARM’s latest Cortex A9 processors occupies less than 1.5mm2, using the 65nm production process. To put that into perspective: a nanometre is a billionth of a metre, which means a nanometre is to a tennis ball what a tennis ball is to the planet Earth.

“Microscopic” doesn’t even come close.

Yet, if that sounds impossibly fiddly, Intel’s latest Core processors are built using a 32nm process. While you might just be able to spot one of ARM’s cores with the naked eye, to see one of the 32nm transistors on an Intel chip, you would need to enlarge the processor to beyond the size of a house.

Working at such precision is an enormous challenge for chip manufacturers. As processes are refined every two years to keep Moore’s Law alive, Intel’s engineers are forced to show remarkable levels of ingenuity to keep processors ticking. “The end has been predicted many times, and we have shown this is not the case,” said Intel fellow Jose Maiz. “At least, not yet.”

Read full article: http://www.pcpro.co.uk

The Art of Failure 2010

Wednesday, August 18th, 2010

When a microchip is born during the prototyping phase, it doesn’t always come out as expected. Analysis of these failures often brings to the eye very peculiar images.. Check the slideshow below!

Just as one man’s trash is another man’s treasure, one person’s systems failure is another one’s masterpiece. This is the third year that the “Art of Failure Analysis”was featured at the IEEE International Symposium on the Physical and Failure Analysis of Integrated Circuits (IPFA). Participants submitted the most intriguing images they’d captured during chip autopsies. Favorite pictures from the collection, which range from charming to just plain creepy, were on display at the symposium from 5 to 9 July in Singapore.

Source: http://spectrum.ieee.org

New Firefox iFrame Bug Bypasses URL Protections

Wednesday, August 18th, 2010

There is a bug in Mozilla’s flagship Firefox browser related to the way the browser handles obfuscated URLs in iFrames. However, a Mozilla official said the bug poses “very low” risk to users.

Johnathan Nightingale of Mozilla said in a blog post late Tuesday that the bug poses little risk to users. “This issue poses very low risk to users. This attack relies on user confusion about the true destination of a link, and only someone examining the HTML source of the page would ever see the deceptive URL. Most users do not view the source of loading pages, and are therefore unlikely to be impacted by this attack,” Nightingale, the director of development for Firefox, wrote.

He added that the company doesn’t plan to fix the bug, as there is little chance of it being exploited. “There is currently no fix in plan since Mozilla does not believe this can be used to attack users. Firefox ships with built-in phishing and malware protection that warns users if they are attempting to visit a dangerous URL, and these attempts at deception do not impact that protection,” he wrote.

The problem of URL obfuscation is not a new one, and neither is it novel for attackers to use iFrames as an infection vector for visitors to a compromised Web site. Web-based attacks have been employing various forms of URL obfuscation for years now, and iFrames are a favorite of attackers because of their ability to perform malicious actions in the background of a victim’s Web session.

The new flaw, which already is in the Mozilla Bugzilla system, is in all of the current versions of Firefox, according to researchers at Web application security firm Armorize. URL obfuscation often is used by attackers to hide the true address of a malicious site that they’re directing users to, typically as part of a phishing or drive-by download attack. But browsers now check for this behavior and will warn users when a URL appears to have been tampered with, explaining that this may not be the site they’re looking for.

Full story @ threatpost.com