41–50 of 176 posts
google cache: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jqSuv7...
By the way, here's a short script that will download a (full) page with wget, add it to IPFS (if you have a running daemon) and copy the Eternum link to clipboard:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they previously broke the KRACK embargo (among others): https://lobste.rs/s/dwzplh/krack_attacks_breaking_wpa2#c_pbh... it's no surprise they're not high up on the list of important people to tell
No one seems to have told the other BSDs, either.
I don’t understand the Intel hate. It’s not like their engineers are dumb or lazy. This exploit is very hard to imagine before now. And it’s there because chip makers were trying to wring out more performance. It’s unfortunate if anythig.
I don’t understand the Intel hate. It’s not like their engineers are dumb or lazy. This exploit is very hard to imagine before now. And it’s there because chip makers were trying to wring out more performance. It’s unfortunate if anythig.
With this recent news, I feel like part of the reason that Intel has been doing so well is that they have been _cheating_.
May be time for OpenBSD people ( if they have the resources ) to build a CPU from ground up with RISC-V?
Is there not some sort of OS embargo consortium that could be created to resolve this?
they previously broke the KRACK embargo (among others): https://lobste.rs/s/dwzplh/krack_attacks_breaking_wpa2#c_pbh... it's no surprise they're not high up on the list of important people to tell
From https://www.krackattacks.com/#openbsd :
> As a compromise, I allowed them to silently patch the vulnerability.
Receiving permission to patch is the opposite of breaking an embargo.
I don’t understand the Intel hate. It’s not like their engineers are dumb or lazy. This exploit is very hard to imagine before now. And it’s there because chip makers were trying to wring out more performance. It’s unfortunate if anythig.
The OpenBSD developers are mad that Intel didn't inform them, or any of the other BSDs. Only Microsoft and Linux developers where included in the information that was under embargo. I don't think they're upset that Intel made a mistake, not more so that most others anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any source on why AMD64 is unaffected? The paper only mentions that they couldn't make their current approach work on AMD, but it doesn't rule out that it could be improved and made work
AMD's microarchitecture does not perform speculative loads that would cause a segfault, according to this AMD engineer: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/27/2
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The OpenBSD developers are mad that Intel didn't inform them, or any of the other BSDs. Only Microsoft and Linux developers where included in the information that was under embargo. I don't think they're upset that Intel made a mistake, not more so that most others anyway.
Don‘t they refuse to honor embargoes? That would be an explanation why they got no information privately.
I don’t understand the Intel hate. It’s not like their engineers are dumb or lazy. This exploit is very hard to imagine before now. And it’s there because chip makers were trying to wring out more performance. It’s unfortunate if anythig.
From my perspective: I've been singing Intel's praises for the last decade as they regularly (for my own tests/usage) beat out AMD in performance, clock for clock if not dollar for dollar. With this recent news, I feel like part of the reason that Intel has been doing so well is that they have been _cheating_.