31–40 of 129 posts
This is -- to say the least -- frustrating. First, the busted microcode is still available on the Intel Download Center[1], without any warning that they recommend that you not, in fact, install it. Second, the press release is still being evasive: they have not merely "received reports"; they in fact know that it's causing issues, and the press release is avoiding the much stronger language that Intel is giving priv…
Why should they bother communicating clearly with their customers? Who are those customers going to turn to? AMD? ARM? Between Intel's numerous CPU bugs that they refused to refund customers for and ME, it's crystal clear what Intel thinks about their customers.
This is -- to say the least -- frustrating. First, the busted microcode is still available on the Intel Download Center[1], without any warning that they recommend that you not, in fact, install it. Second, the press release is still being evasive: they have not merely "received reports"; they in fact know that it's causing issues, and the press release is avoiding the much stronger language that Intel is giving priv…
(in the HN news article linked above https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-security-issue-update-... )
Well this promises to be fun, especially for cloud providers (and those running instances on the cloud, who now potentially get to suffer through host instability)
Intel's adaptation of Netflix's Chaos Monkey [0]? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_Monkey
From speaking in my circles, I get the impression that those of us without our own data centers to worry about are much better off than those who do.
I think it's a bit ironic that the text, in a sense, blames Google for these problems by calling them the "Google Project Zero Exploits" as if Google was some sort of cyber crime syndicate using their evil powers to exploit intel.
As developers, we should know this phenomenon well by now, as it's dictated an ever-increasing portion of our toolchain. "Oh, you say Google uses this thing?! I use it too then! Google and me are best buds!". (This applies equally to Facebook, and to a lesser extent, Amazon. Compare one of my son's favorite YouTube videos at [0]).
Alternatively, they may want customers to think "Oh boy you have to be a super genius guy like the Googles to beat up Intel so this isn't a big deal", or "How could Google do this to a nice company like Intel".
So many possibilities, but really all of them turn out well for Intel.
This is -- to say the least -- frustrating. First, the busted microcode is still available on the Intel Download Center[1], without any warning that they recommend that you not, in fact, install it. Second, the press release is still being evasive: they have not merely "received reports"; they in fact know that it's causing issues, and the press release is avoiding the much stronger language that Intel is giving priv…
Why should they bother communicating clearly with their customers? Who are those customers going to turn to? AMD? ARM? Between Intel's numerous CPU bugs that they refused to refund customers for and ME, it's crystal clear what Intel thinks about their customers.
How do you propose this could work?
Are side channel vulnerabilities in CPUs really bugs?
I really wonder how many rape-parties this califag has been to
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should they bother communicating clearly with their customers? Who are those customers going to turn to? AMD? ARM? Between Intel's numerous CPU bugs that they refused to refund customers for and ME, it's crystal clear what Intel thinks about their customers.
>Between Intel's numerous CPU bugs that they refused to refund customers for How do you propose this could work? Are side channel vulnerabilities in CPUs really bugs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should they bother communicating clearly with their customers? Who are those customers going to turn to? AMD? ARM? Between Intel's numerous CPU bugs that they refused to refund customers for and ME, it's crystal clear what Intel thinks about their customers.
>Between Intel's numerous CPU bugs that they refused to refund customers for How do you propose this could work? Are side channel vulnerabilities in CPUs really bugs?
I would have expected, if I thought to ask, that items were not added to the cache or were removed from the cache if the branch was not retired.