He's not wrong, both on the recall (which I'm not holding my breath on - I fully expect Intel to fight that to the bitter end given how much more painful than the Pentium replacements that would be for them) and the handling of the entire situation. There's clearly been a very high bar set betweeen those who were given the heads-up and those who were not, especially amongst service providers where it appears that only the *really* big players were in the loop. In the case of BSD devs specifically being le
A recall of every CPU since 2006 would decimate (if the recall isn't heavily utilized) or likely even bankrupt Intel. The Core 2 generation is the oldest practical Intel CPU (yes, I know this is a subjective statement, thus "practical") on which you can run Windows 10 and modern software. Every computer running Windows 10 and an Intel chip would need CPU replacement. We are talking quite literally several billion processors since Intel sells a few hundred million per year. Intel's market cap is over 200 bil
Do you have proof that Intel deliberately implemented Meltdown, then lied and covered it up for decades until it was exposed?
Because otherwise you're being asinine. There's no such thing as perfect products or products that won't break down or bug-free software or bug-free hardware.
They certainly deliberately implemented it, in that they made design choices that no other CPU manufacturer did.
As for what the GP post said, inactions also have consequences. At best, Intel was negligent in their processor design. The knew or should have known (because it is demonstrable that other companies knew) that allowing privileged access even speculatively was a risk.
How about deliberately ignored warnings about security problems with the speculative methods they used?
Because, if anyone warned about potential problems (they did) and Intel knew about it (they had to have known) and ignored the warnings (they did) then it becomes willful. They didn't have to plant the problem, all they had to do was ignore the warnings.
Or as I keep telling my boss, security is paramount, usability is not. This doesn't mean you can ignore usability, it is that it isn't prime factor in deci
This is exactly reversed: without something to use there is nothing to secure.
In other words, before making a car safe one must first have a car. So, while important (and different people place different importance on it) security is not the paramount.
"I want repaired processors for free" (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, he's not wrong. This is, in impact, way bigger than Intel's FDIV fiasco and that ended up in recalls.
Re: (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:0)
Great post, but
A recall of every CPU since 2006 would decimate (if the recall isn't heavily utilized) or likely even bankrupt Intel.
Too bad. Actions have consequences.
Re:"I want repaired processors for free" (Score:2)
Because otherwise you're being asinine. There's no such thing as perfect products or products that won't break down or bug-free software or bug-free hardware.
Re: (Score:0)
They certainly deliberately implemented it, in that they made design choices that no other CPU manufacturer did.
As for what the GP post said, inactions also have consequences. At best, Intel was negligent in their processor design. The knew or should have known (because it is demonstrable that other companies knew) that allowing privileged access even speculatively was a risk.
Re: (Score:2)
How about deliberately ignored warnings about security problems with the speculative methods they used?
Because, if anyone warned about potential problems (they did) and Intel knew about it (they had to have known) and ignored the warnings (they did) then it becomes willful. They didn't have to plant the problem, all they had to do was ignore the warnings.
Or as I keep telling my boss, security is paramount, usability is not. This doesn't mean you can ignore usability, it is that it isn't prime factor in deci
Re: (Score:3)
...security is paramount, usability is not.
This is exactly reversed: without something to use there is nothing to secure.
In other words, before making a car safe one must first have a car. So, while important (and different people place different importance on it) security is not the paramount.
Re: (Score:0)
They go hand in hand.
Someone defined security as being able to rely on your system to behave in a predictable manner. Of course behavior = use.
Re: "I want repaired processors for free" (Score:0)
Theo gave you those answers. I guess you didn't bother reading.
Re: (Score:0)
Forget about the decades, how about months after Intel was told about the bug. But they keep selling the defect CPUs, don't they?