<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>TRRespass: Exploiting the Many Sides of Target Row Refresh · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2004.01807/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2004.01807/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>TRRespass: Exploiting the Many Sides of Target Row Refresh — mentioned by zsmi</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29232565</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2004.01807:29232565</guid><pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2021 20:52:20 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;There was another paper last year that showed something similar, and it went into way more detail on what TRR actually is. TRRespass: Exploiting the Many Sides of Target Row Refresh https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.01807.pdf Memory controller mitigation of RowHammer can work pretty well, if one actually has it turned on. Which is unfortunately rarely the case even in 2021.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2004.01807/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CR</category></item><item><title>TRRespass: Exploiting the Many Sides of Target Row Refresh — mentioned by ljhsiung</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27282551</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2004.01807:27282551</guid><pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2021 20:57:38 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;From the blog-- &amp;gt;&amp;gt; This is likely an indication that the electrical coupling responsible for Rowhammer is a property of distance, effectively becoming stronger and longer-ranged as cell geometries shrink down From the paper (bottom of page 13)-- &amp;gt;&amp;gt; ... we saw mappings from [1] that we used for this work. This suggests that the published findings about distance &amp;gt;1 Rowhammer are simply a result of not taking the correct mapping into account. Given that the patters we found appear to be distance 2 attacks, our industry partners were skeptical about them. These bits tell a much bigger story to…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2004.01807/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CR</category></item></channel></rss>
