Easiest way would be to put two dimms in one channel, check your mem spped, put 1 dimm in 2 channels, check mem speed, then repopulate as you had, check mem speed.
Sometimes having more, but slower ram, is still better than having less, but faster ram.
As always, measuring your real world use cases is the ultimate test.
yes sorry, just updated my comment shortly before you replied.
This is CVE-2025-36911, the other ones were CVE-2025-20700, CVE-2025-20701, CVE-2025-20702. Coincidentally a similar set of headphones affected.
This one also has a pairing vulnerability, but I assume fast pair is on the BLE level:
> To start the Fast Pair procedure, a Seeker (a phone) sends a message to the Provider (an accessory) indicating that it wants to pair.
> [...] allowing unauthorised devices to start the pairing process [...]
It's a pity that this is only awarded with $15k, this is a really bad vulnerability - which clearly required thoughtful investigation, publishing, reporting, ... and would have a much bigger audience in the exploit market.
Would it be be trivial to have a init container to do CA injection? Maybe though mutating admission controller? Then some CNI magic to redirect outbound traffic to do transparent proxying?
Even vanilla models spew out POC for three RCE’s in less than an hour
reply