[bakugo]

ECC passively benefits everyone, even people who don't know what it is or why it's useful. Anyone can be a victim of random bit flips, it's not a targeted threat.

Memory encryption, on the other hand, provides absolutely no benefit to 99.999% of users. If you consider yourself to be such a high value target that you suspect someone might gain physical access to your hardware without your knowledge and carry out extremely sophisticated hardware attacks to extract your data, you are a tiny minority and it makes sense that such niche protections would require buying specialized hardware. Even then, the odds of such an attack being chosen instead of a far less sophisticated software-based approach are also tiny.

Of course, if the hardware itself supports the feature and AMD simply decided to disable it, that's still a shitty thing to do, but let's not pretend that it is in any way comparable to ECC.

[akimbostrawman]

Memory encryption can help mitigate much lower level attacks such as row hammer, these attacks get patched even average consumer devices.

No benefit for 99%? people said the same about FDE. Just as there is not a good enough excuse to not validate integrity and availability of data, it is not for confidentiality when its very much technically possible to do so.

[15155]

So can scrambling - which is not encryption.

[akimbostrawman]

Great, so they just need to create and maintain a completely different method just for consumer instead of the already existing prosumer encryption without the added benefit of security and most likely even performance reduction because encryption has hardware acceleration.