Intel revealed Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability that it will not be issuing Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability Spectre patches to a number of older Intel processor families , potentially leaving many customers vulnerable to the security exploit . Intel claims the processors affected are mostly implemented as closed systems , so they aren ’ t at risk from the Spectre exploit , and that the age of these processors means they have limited commercial availability . The processors which Intel won ’ t be patching Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability include four lines from 2007 , Penryn , Yorkfield , and Wolfdale , along with Bloomfield ( 2009 ) , Clarksfield ( 2009 ) , Jasper Forest ( 2010 ) and the Intel Atom SoFIA processors from 2015 . According to Tom ’ s Hardware , Intel ’ s decision not to patch Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability these products could stem from the relative difficulty of patching Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability the Spectre exploit on older systems . “ After a comprehensive investigation of the microarchitectures and microcode capabilities for these products , Intel has determined to not release Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability microcode updates for these products , ” Intel said . Because of the nature of the Spectre exploit , patches for it need to be delivered Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability as an operating system or BIOS update , and if Microsoft and motherboard OEMs aren ’ t going to distribute Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability the patches , developing Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability them isn ’ t much of a priority . “ However , the real reason Intel gave up on patching Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability these systems seems to be that neither motherboard makers nor Microsoft may be willing to update Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability systems sold a decade ago , ” Tom ’ s Hardware reports . It sounds bad , but as Intel pointed out , these are all relatively old processors — with the exception of the Intel Atom SoFIA processor , which came out in 2015 — and it ’ s unlikely they ’ re used in any high-security environments . The Spectre exploit is a serious security vulnerability to be sure , but as some commentators have pointed out in recent months , it ’ s not the kind of exploit the average user needs to worry about . “ We ’ ve now completed release Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability of microcode updates for Intel microprocessor products launched in the last 9+ years that required protection against the side-channel vulnerabilities discovered Vulnerability-related.DiscoverVulnerability by Google Project Zero , ” said an Intel spokseperson . “ However , as indicated in our latest microcode revision guidance , we will not be providing Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability updated microcode for a select number of older platforms for several reasons , including limited ecosystem support and customer feedback. ” If you have an old Penryn processor toiling away in an office PC somewhere , you ’ re probably more at risk for a malware infection arising from a bad download than you are susceptible to something as technically sophisticated as the Spectre or Meltdown vulnerabilities .

In this day and age of online attacks , it becomes all the more important to protect one ’ s computer and other devices against the various threats . Criminals often try to bypass existing security solutions on the device in question , but they also distribute Attack.Phishing fake tools that allegedly prevent these attacks from happening . This trend is called “ rogue security software Attack.Phishing , ” and has been proven to be quite successful over the past few years . This rogue Attack.Phishing anti-spyware program is a clone Attack.Phishing of the Total Virus Protection malware whose origin points to the Russian Federation . The software offers you an option to purchase a license in order to remove those programs when in fact the “ infections ” are critical system files . Many more clones of this software exist , and 2017 variants have been spotted in the wild already . ANG Antivirus only targets Microsoft Windows users , the good news is that it is not too harmful because it ’ s main goal is to scare you into buying a software license . However , some variants have proven to be more harmful and may even steal Attack.Databreach sensitive user information . Do not confuse this “ tool ” with the official Microsoft Security Essentials software , as they are nothing alike . Security Essentials 2010 is a malware strain first discovered in February of 2010 . Its most powerful threat is how the malware prevents users from launching over 150 different programs , including most browsers and the Windows Command Prompt . Unlike ANG Antivirus , Security Essentials uses 3rd party trojans that disguise Attack.Phishing themselves as flash updates that are required to view online videos . Once baited Attack.Phishing , the trojan will install a number of malware including Security Essentials 2010 . Similar to the previous scareware , this one will also prompt you to purchase a license to supposedly remove quite a few threats , all of which are obviously fake . Thankfully , this malware has not been reported of stealing Attack.Databreach personal information or any more sensitive info and is no longer an active threat . The funny part about this program is that it started as Attack.Phishing a legitimate anti-spam system that tried to automate the complaint process for email spam . The program would allow for a user to send a complaint about a spam email to the software . However , some say that the program collected Attack.Databreach the list of emails in order to sell it to other spammers as a fresh list of targets . It did not take long for this security tool to get shut down completely , which occurred in May of 2006 . The company bailed after a thread popped up on a security forum accusing Blue Security of initiating a massive spam attack Attack.Phishing on it ’ s users , Blue Frog was gone one week later . Macintosh users are also in need of proper security tools to keep their computer safe from harm . Mac Defender tried to fill this need , even though its developers had less honorable intentions . It was the first major malware threat to MacOS , its object was to trick Attack.Phishing users into paying the license fee , ranging between US $ 59 and US $ 79 . Moreover , the malware collected Attack.Databreach payment card information used for the license and would use that for further fraudulent purposes . Do not be fooled into thinking this is a software tool that will keep a computer safe from spyware . Instead , the Zinaps software wants to perform Attack.Phishing fake computer scans and trick Attack.Phishing users into buying a license . This is a very common theme among rogue Attack.Phishing security software , as most developers hope to make a lot of money by tempting users into paying for their useless creations . What makes this malware so dangerous is that Zinaps would edit the Windows Registry , ensuring the software runs as soon as the computer boots up . It also makes removing the software much harder and almost almost always leaves traces after its gone . This scareware rogue Attack.Phishing security program will not fix Vulnerability-related.PatchVulnerability any issues related to Windows or otherwise . Once again , this malware wants to force users to buy a license , while not offering any help with real security issues whatsoever .