this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2025
213 points (93.5% liked)
Technology
76041 readers
2564 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That wouldn't be too bad. There could be a new permission for precise time.
...and there you go:
https://ccs25files.zoolab.org/main/ccsfb/1REOCPAR/3719027.3765061.pdf
https://misc0110.net/files/exfilstate_ccs25.pdf
From https://www.sigsac.org/ccs/CCS2025/accepted-papers/ (#378)
Literally published less than a day ago:
At the same conference (CCS) that the paper referred to by the ars technica article was accepted.
You can implement a counting-thread that's even more precise than the CPU's timer (TSC on x86) platforms. This was shown in attacks on Intel SGX, where the rdtsc instruction to access the time-stamp counter is unavailable.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-60876-1_1
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.08719
If you remove access to the timer, attackers will simply build one.