- Joined
- Feb 3, 2017
- Messages
- 3,624 (1.31/day)
Processor | R5 5600X |
---|---|
Motherboard | ASUS ROG STRIX B550-I GAMING |
Cooling | Alpenföhn Black Ridge |
Memory | 2*16GB DDR4-2666 VLP @3800 |
Video Card(s) | EVGA Geforce RTX 3080 XC3 |
Storage | 1TB Samsung 970 Pro, 2TB Intel 660p |
Display(s) | ASUS PG279Q, Eizo EV2736W |
Case | Dan Cases A4-SFX |
Power Supply | Corsair SF600 |
Mouse | Corsair Ironclaw Wireless RGB |
Keyboard | Corsair K60 |
VR HMD | HTC Vive |
That very flaw Intel fixes (hopefully complete)nowagain is that very security flaw Intel said they got fixed/repaired already 6 months ago. Except that they didn't back then – but lied (sic!) about in doing so instead, despite they knew better. So if anyone may wonder who may have been come up with it, it was some university some people may remember now …
This is part of normal vulnerability disclosure process.https://zombieloadattack.com/ said:We disclosed Variant 2 to Intel on April 23th, 2019, and communicated that the attacks work on Cascade Lake CPUs on May 10th, 2019. On May 12th, 2019, the variant has been put under embargo and, thus, has not been published with the previous version of our ZombieLoad attack on May 14th, 2019.
Everyone involved was informed of the issues back in June 2017. This includes at least Intel, AMD, ARM, IBM, Microsoft, Apple and some other hardware or software vendors. Responsible disclosure process is pretty standard and for this type of products and complex issues time frames of 3-6 months between reporting the vulnerability to vendor and making it public are fairly common.Yeah, like many say since a while and like we all should know by now, the very day Meltdown & Spectre went public, Intel reflexively engaged into another (st)age of their infamous mode ›Cover-up‹. It seems to be some age of fraud actually.
I mean, if you consider how long they have had been informed about the issues back in the middle of 2017 well in advance before anyone else and how little they did. They kept shut about everything – and most likely they would've liked to keep everything under the rug. It's just that the Linux kernel-developer went public on January '18 as they got so darn fed up on how Intel handled all this that those leaked those anyway – after over half a year Intel did exactly no·thing, not even informing OEMs.
Funny enough, the Linux kernel-developer even vastly helped Intel to such an extent getting rid of those flaws without ANYONE noticing, that only a handful of kernel-developers (and only the most trusted ones) brought in given kernel-patches silently with·out ANY info on what exactly they were doing on it just around Christmas in 2017 (so when everyone is with their family and no-one would hopefully get notice of it) – which is a stark and the utmost extreme novum never happening before in the rather transparent open-source community. That being said, it escalated as Intel demanded more and more from them effectively doing their work hiding dirty laundry until it blew out publicly as even those few involved got just sick to the back teeth on how Intel was handling it.
Spectre and Meltdown were intended to be made public in early January 2018 - 8th, if I remember correctly - alongside mitigation patches from vendors. Since Linux kernel development is open, it got patches in late December (later than other OS vendors, probably for the exact reason of what actually happened). There was discussion, suspicions and people quickly deduced what these patches were about or close enough, prompting earlier-than-planned publication of Spectre and Meltdown.
Depends on whether Intel really thinks what they are saying publicly? They always twist the meaning for publicity purposes but are otherwise fairly straightforward about what they are doing. Nothing has been said about stock buyback but Intel CFO did say they "expect to have heightened competition over the next 18 to 24 months" (read: they are screwed). If a company has cash at hand this sounds like a perfect time to do stock buybacks. Especially if they intend to achieve a comeback after that.That's just since they constantly backing up themselves by buying their own stocks en masse.
...
So they're actively using their own stock's sudden fall in prices after quarter-results going public to buy their own fallen stocks in large numbers. If that isn't already sketchy, I don't know what it is …