I'm not really in the HPC space, but I can't really see any vp/cto/cio reasonably putting that asterisk on a security audit.
If you've got cyber insurance, you probably wouldn't be able to keep coverage if you did that.
I'm not really in the HPC space, but I can't really see any vp/cto/cio reasonably putting that asterisk on a security audit.
If you've got cyber insurance, you probably wouldn't be able to keep coverage if you did that.
Any CIO that decides not to use such security patches will carry on his/her shoulders the full risk. Big bosses don't like risk and like even less to be personally accountable for anything => I don't see that happening.
Even if the tests mentioned in the article might be related to HPC, the HW is for general computing therefore its usage doesn't have to be restricted to HPC, but people might still decide to use (as well) those HPC-results to compare the types of CPUs.
And why do you think a security policy is needed here at all instead of just, you know, laws & contracts? You can't just anonymously rent time on these systems even if you have the money - you need your usage approved, too, and it's a big whole process. If you then go and successfully launch a security attack, why does that require technical safeguards instead of just the FBI knocking down your door and hauling your ass to jail?