6/20/2026 at 9:50:05 PM
> TSME isn't a critical security feature for most consumer desktops, as it protects against attacks where the attacker needs physical access to the device.If you think it's hard to gain physical access to a consumer desktop, you're out of touch. Most desktops aren't locked inside a datacenter. Memory encryption is a valuable desktop (and laptop) security feature.
by theandrewbailey
6/20/2026 at 10:19:24 PM
So my PC runs 5% slower because someone could break into my house to get physical access to decrypt memory? OK sure, but not my top concern, and a bad tradeoff for the lost performance. And not only fair, but completely accurate to describe TSME as non-critical for *most* consumer desktops. I'd go as far as to say useless and counter-productive for most, but not all, consumer desktops.by WillPostForFood
6/20/2026 at 10:48:33 PM
So you turn it off by default in BIOS and allow those that feel it's useful to them to enable it, and you solve for both sides of the problem.by futuraperdita
6/21/2026 at 12:48:44 AM
Does it run slower? I'd expect dedicated hardware to do that encryption/decryption, in which case there should be no difference.by eYrKEC2
6/21/2026 at 9:11:31 AM
I think it's more a reference to Spectre and Meltdown and Rowhammer and a bazillion other hold-my-beer attacks that have never, ever been used in the wild but that everyone pays the price for by having their CPUs slowed down by the countermeasures. Applying Unicorn Repellant is fine when there's no cost, but it definitely has a cost in these cases.by pseudohadamard
6/21/2026 at 9:56:24 AM
How can you be so sure they have never been used in the wild? Surely not all uses of them get reported...by Itoldmyselfso
6/22/2026 at 3:10:20 AM
The same way I'm fairly sure that no-one's ever been attacked by a unicorn. There could be lots of unreported attacks, but I'm pretty sure there aren't any actual ones.What we do have is millions of actual, real-world attacks (see any security body's top-ten list) that we aren't mitigating because we're too busy focusing on silly attacks that no-one ever uses.
by pseudohadamard
6/22/2026 at 6:04:23 PM
I had read there was a ~5% slowdown with it enabled.by WillPostForFood
6/21/2026 at 6:59:51 AM
If it's not your top concern, you're probably a government employee with full security clearance and the "consumer desktop" doubles as a pirated game rig, top secret NAS and Twitter battle box.by avadodin
6/21/2026 at 3:11:19 PM
The 180 is incredible to see though. I remember when enforcing FDE was all the rage bc well, shit gets stolen. This stuff was a critical concern then. Apple got raked over the coals for months because they did nothing to prevent shoulder surfing (as if a phone could).by halJordan
6/20/2026 at 11:21:12 PM
If the bad guys have physical access to my consumer desktop, I'm already well and truly fucked.by cwillu
6/22/2026 at 4:02:28 PM
It converts some of silent bitflip errors into loud crashes, which is desirable in some use cases.by anticensor
6/20/2026 at 10:07:05 PM
You'd need physical access while it is running as the target is using it.by CivBase
6/20/2026 at 10:13:17 PM
When the threat model is physical security, henchmen are also a consideration.by hnuser123456
6/21/2026 at 6:57:38 AM
Yeah if you’re worried about someone getting physical access to your PC for information you should probably be more worried about someone beating that information out of you first.by transcriptase
6/21/2026 at 6:58:24 AM
> as it protects against attacks where the attacker needs physical access to the device.Doesn't it also protect against rowhammer-like attacks?
by cma
6/20/2026 at 10:48:38 PM
The last few companies have all had desktops in datacenters with the local PC just a virtual terminal.by rr808