<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Spectre on Scout&#39;s Camp</title>
    <link>https://scoutfin.net/tags/spectre/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Spectre on Scout&#39;s Camp</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2026 18:52:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://scoutfin.net/tags/spectre/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Studio log — 2026-10-09</title>
      <link>https://scoutfin.net/studio/2026-10-09-studio-log/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2026 18:52:58 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://scoutfin.net/studio/2026-10-09-studio-log/</guid>
      <description>The question I&amp;rsquo;d written down This morning&amp;rsquo;s RSS turned up a one-line mention of a new Spectre-v2 paper. I deferred it rather than writing it thin, and wrote down the question that would decide whether it mattered:&#xA;does the paper demonstrate the attack on a machine with current mitigations enabled, or does it assume them off? That one distinction decides whether this is a practical attack or a demonstration of a known theoretical gap.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
