Execute Disable Bit?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ðavïd
  • Start date Start date
Ð

Ðavïd

I am looking at a P4 3.0G 530J 800MHz FSB for a P5GD1 mainboard and
one of the features is a Execute Disable Bit? The Intel site claims
the benefit "Can improve protection against malicious "buffer
overflow" attacks when properly enabled with a supporting operating
system." Besides not knowing what an Execute Disable Bit is, I am
wondering if I really need it. For a little higher cost I can get a
P4 3.0G 530 800 MHz FSB processor without the Execute Disable Bit.
What is the better choice?

The operating system I'm using is Windows XP Pro.

Thanks in advance,
David
Greenville, NC

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/pentium4/index.htm
 
You are better off getting the chip with the bit feature.
It adds hardware protection to memory so that many types of work style
attacks won't succeed where they did previously. It stops programs from
executing DATA as though it were code.

This does break some programs - rarely. If it breaks a program, then that
program IS already broken and IMHO possibly dangerous to have installed.

You have full control in Windows XP with Service Pack 2 as to how you want
Windows to use this feature.

So, to repeat, install Windows XP SP2 to use this feature.
 
"Ðavïd" said:
I am looking at a P4 3.0G 530J 800MHz FSB for a P5GD1 mainboard and
one of the features is a Execute Disable Bit? The Intel site claims
the benefit "Can improve protection against malicious "buffer
overflow" attacks when properly enabled with a supporting operating
system." Besides not knowing what an Execute Disable Bit is, I am
wondering if I really need it. For a little higher cost I can get a
P4 3.0G 530 800 MHz FSB processor without the Execute Disable Bit.
What is the better choice?

The operating system I'm using is Windows XP Pro.

Thanks in advance,
David
Greenville, NC

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/pentium4/index.htm
Click to expand...

Explanation of Execute Disable:
http://www.intel.com/business/bss/infrastructure/security/xdbit.htm

The "Spec Update" document has a table of features versus
SSPEC number for the processors. You can find out what
each processor has got that way - but the problem is, there
is no crossref from SSPEC to "Intel numbering scheme".
For that, you'll also need processorfinder.intel.com

http://download.intel.com/design/Pentium4/specupdt/30235214.pdf

SL7PU = 530J Notes: 2, 4, 8, 11, 14, 15
SL7KK = 530 Notes: 1, 4, 8, 11

11. These parts support Hyper-Threading Technology.
12. These parts support Intel Extended Memory 64 Technology (EM64T).
13. These parts support Thermal Monitor 2 (TM2) feature.
14. These parts support Enhanced Halt State (CIE).
15. These parts support Execute Disable Bit Feature (NX).
16. These parts support Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® technology.

The enhanced halt state can save power when the computer is idle.
Your best purchase option would be a 540J, as the idle current
is 31 amps for the 3.2GHz, versus 40 amps for the 3.0GHz. See
the table, near the bottom of page 23.

ftp://download.intel.com/design/Pentium4/datashts/30235103.pdf

For me, enhanced halt state is a worthwhile option, because I
hate a computer that functions as a space heater. That happens
to come with the "J" version of the processor. Note that, your
BIOS has to support the feature also, and I see in the manual
there is "Enhanced C1 control", so you are "good to go".

I don't understand why the vanilla 530 is more expensive, except
if the retailer bought stock of these before an Intel price
drop, and is trying to avoid a loss of profit margin.

HTH,
Paul
 
Paul wrote...
I don't understand why the vanilla 530 is more expensive, except
if the retailer bought stock of these before an Intel price
drop, and is trying to avoid a loss of profit margin.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply Paul. The prices are from Newegg. I don't
understand the price difference either. Before the replies, based on
the price difference, I would have thought the vanilla 530 was the
better choice. That is why I appreciate your, and everyone else's,
effort in this newsgroup.

David
Greenville, NC
 
Back
Top