Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel Security Issue Update: Initial Performance Data Results for Client Systems

newsroom.intel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 43 posts

Re: Intel Security Issue Update: Initial Performance Data Results for Client Systems

#11

Post by a012 »

detaro wrote: post #10
a012 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's too early to say, it's not known _yet_. Are you waiting for a first case to fix your bugs?

Where are they saying anything about not fixing bugs? And like it or not, with the issues of the available patches breaking machines, virus scanner incompatibilities, ..., organisations will have to make decisions about when to patch.

I said they said like "the world is just overreacted, and if you insist to promptly applying patch they'll provide". It's about their tone in their first statement. And you're misleading my point here.

Re: Intel Security Issue Update: Initial Performance Data Results for Client Systems

#12

Post by sho_hn »

Much more so than the bugs themselves it seriously undermines my confidence in Intel that in this time of emergency, they can't bring themselves to address customers with straight talk.

Clear information should take precedence over mitigating liability. Yet it's fallen to others to explain defects in their products, and people are even mostly left guessing what their attempts to fix things actually do.

Screwups happen. But do I want to go live through the consequences of one with this vendor at my side ever again?

Re: Intel Security Issue Update: Initial Performance Data Results for Client Systems

#13

Post by detaro »

a012 wrote: post #11
detaro wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are they saying anything about not fixing bugs? And like it or not, with the issues of the available patches breaking machines, virus scanner incompatibilities, ..., organisations will have to make decisions about when to patch.

I said they said like "the world is just overreacted, and if you insist to promptly applying patch they'll provide". It's about their tone in their first statement. And you're misleading my point here.

And I really do not see how you get a "the world just overreacted" tone from this post or specifically your quote, I did not intend to mislead from your point. Their overall communication strategy has been pretty bad, but this instance seems fine to me. It's providing information. I guess they should even provide more information against patching, since they don't talk about the issues fixes can cause.

Re: Intel Security Issue Update: Initial Performance Data Results for Client Systems

#15

Post by tlrobinson »

a012 wrote: post #7

> As of today, we still have not received any information that these exploits have been used to obtain customer data. We know our customers are eager for updates, and via this blog, I will personally communicate with you the information that we have to share today and in the future. Seriously? To Intel, all of the world is just overreacted?

It always bugs me when companies say they don't have any evidence of an exploit being used. It's completely meaningless without knowing how hard they looked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Re: Intel Security Issue Update: Initial Performance Data Results for Client Systems

#17

Post by HugoDaniel »

sho_hn wrote: post #12

Much more so than the bugs themselves it seriously undermines my confidence in Intel that in this time of emergency, they can't bring themselves to address customers with straight talk. Clear information should take precedence over mitigating liability. Yet it's fallen to others to explain defects in their products, and people are even mostly left guessing what their attempts to fix things actually do. Screwups happe…

Do you really think this was a screwup ?

Intel is a company that has a highly hierarchical structure and a very thorough process of product development and market approach. Add to that that they are historically one of the key examples of a company that plans their strategy many years ahead and I find it way more sane to default Meltdown to a premeditated conscious decision/tarde-off of their part. Like VW emissions scandal but worse.

"We think long term at Epic. We're like Intel. We look at what we're going to do in five to ten years from now, and set our direction that way..." Tim Sweeney in a Kotaku interview 2011

Post reply on HN