Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

Post by hvidgaard » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 6:29 AM UTC

wtallis wrote: post #24

muppetman wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely it's just designed to scare the big media websites from publishing numbers.

It wouldn't work. Even online media gets pretty strong first amendment protections that mean Intel wouldn't have a complete open and shut case, and we tech journalists are smart enough to be able to get the same microcode updates through other channels that don't have the same strings attached. If it's meant to deter anybody, it's the big corporate customers and competitors.

Post by ddtaylor » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 6:30 AM UTC

lathiat wrote: post #8

johnklos wrote: post #2

I'm really curious how Intel could even imagine this is enforceable. For instance, if I have a server with shell access for many users, am I supposed to forbid my users from publishing benchmarks? If they do, am I liable since I "agreed" to the license? Or are they, even though they never "agreed" to the license? It just doesn't make sense.

Well the license specifically says you will not permit a third party to either. I don't really speak legalese, but does permit include having to then make all of your own users agree not to to avoid a penalty? As mentioned in the other comment thread though, I imagine the reality of this clause is to prevent media outlets (such as Phoronix who would traditionally do exactly this kind of benchmarking) from downloading…

Post by extrapickles » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 6:33 AM UTC

blauditore wrote: post #63

infinity0 wrote: post #45

> Another issue is whether the customer should install the fix at all. Many computer users don’t allow outside or unprivileged users to run on their CPUs the way a cloud or hosting company does. For them, these side-channel and timing attacks are mostly irrelevant, and the slowdown incurred by installing the fix is unnecessary. lol, javascript

Have timing attacks been done successfully in JS? I imagine it's much harder since you have much less low-level control and the engine might impose too much noise. However, wasm is a different story.

Post by ddtaylor » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 6:35 AM UTC

Post by aisofteng » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 6:40 AM UTC

ddtaylor wrote: post #73

lathiat wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the license specifically says you will not permit a third party to either. I don't really speak legalese, but does permit include having to then make all of your own users agree not to to avoid a penalty? As mentioned in the other comment thread though, I imagine the reality of this clause is to prevent media outlets (such as Phoronix who would traditionally do exactly this kind of benchmarking) from downloading…

> Well the license specifically says you will not permit a third party to either. That might as well read as "you can't provide cloud computing" since you can't know what someone is going to execute on their server before they execute it!