Intel is calling for security for rival brands AMD and Nvidia. Intel Product Safety Report claims that 2024 has significantly more security vulnerabilities compared to AMD and Nvidia products. The report claims that AMD has more than four times the firmware vulnerability, but NVIDIA has 80% GPU security issues. The report also highlights the performance of Intel’s internal security research team and talks about vulnerabilities from other competitors.
“The goal is not to compare vulnerability counts, but to take a deeper look at the types of vulnerabilities and the underlying technologies they affect,” the company said in its report.
What Intel said about Nvidia and AMD chip security
According to the report, AMD had “4.4 times more firmware vulnerabilities in hardware root of trust” and “1.8 times more firmware vulnerabilities than in sensitive computing technologies” compared to Intel. The company also criticized Nvidia in the GPU category, saying it only had high vulnerabilities (18) in 2024.
Separately, Intel claimed that AMD only discovered “about 57% of reported platform vulnerabilities,” while the remaining 43% were discovered by security researchers or the public.
Additionally, Intel highlighted that AMD has a vulnerability in the secure processor engine currently labelled “No fixes, no plans,” affecting a total of 78 different SKUs.
To compare, Intel stated that “provided mitigation on all supported SKUs or resolved all hardware root of trust vulnerabilities.” The company also claimed that all trust bugs were “discovered internally” and while AMD also runs a similar program, it highlighted the established bug prize program.
When it comes to GPU security, Intel claims to have the least vulnerabilities, with only “10 issues” identified on GPUs, only one is classified as high or severe, and the rest is considered to be medium threats I reported that it was done.
Meanwhile, Nvidia has reported “18 security vulnerabilities” and all are rated as high severity, 13 of which could allow bad actors to run code on affected PCs.” .
