Intel Pledges To Put Security First After Meltdown, Spectre

[Guest]

Intel CEO Brian Krzanich published an open letter pledging an increased commitment to security, transparency, and collaboration.

Intel Pledges To Put Security First After Meltdown, Spectre : Read more

 

[dextermat]

Oh wow another excuse like BP ceo spills after spills after spills....

 

[derekullo]

Oh wow another excuse like BP ceo spills after spills after spills....

Were you expecting them to issue refunds for every cpu they have made since 1995?

At least he isn't asking for his life back.

 

[nitrium]

If a car company tried to pull the crap Intel has, i.e. selling a car with defective air bags and the fix is to make it drive slower, they'd be out of business. I think everyone who has bought an Intel CPU in the last 5 years should be fully refunded even if it bankrupts them. If the rule of law still existed and Intel wasn't deemed "too big to fail" they'd be forced to do just that.

 

[kep55]

Where have we heard that before? Oh yeah. Microsoft, Intel, Apple...

 

[redgarl]

I lost my confidence in Intel forever. I will never buy their CPU or product ever again in my life. I will give the chance to AMD now on. I am a user who was switching side at every generation... no more. The more I learn about Intel, the more it disgusts me.

 

[ibm650]

so will they patch the older cpus? I have an I7 2600, still plenty fast

 

[marcelo_vidal]

What i've Learn with Intel if some one says it have the best product don't get it. Because who is telling that have some dirt money in the pockets. Every single bit is running a favor of Intel and now what we get? A slowly machine and badly protection. I swear the god. No one coy can be better than the sandy bridge. Slow in some bench but it can run 3 4 programs at same time. Try it on a newer i7. I wish bad my old sandy.

 

[thuck777]

I am not willing to sacrifice the kind of performance noted for my Windows 7 laptop running a Sandy Bridge i7 CPU. That is stupid, especially given that there really is NO threat. Now that so many systems are going to be updated, there is little reason for any scumbags to try to exploit these vulnerabilities, IMO. From my perspective, the cure is far worse than the disease, especially on older hardware / OS combinations. It just is not worth it. So, I believe Microsoft should make a way to have these patches be OPTIONAL and AVOIDABLE and UNINSTALLABLE. This is crap!

 

[mischon123]

The Intel CEO sold a large pack of stock a year ago...not seen much reporting.
Allmost all Intel CPU are to a certain degree defective, including my seven year old i7.

Now what? Intel has a virtually unsellable inventory. Only US chips have the probs. Makes you think.

 

[therealduckofdeath]

Nitrium, car analogies are still as irrelevant as they were when that whole thing started back in the 90's. Your car costs hundreds times more than your phone. Your car can have fatal accidents or serious environmental effects if it fails.
Since this is a design flaw that really affects every processor sold since the WWW thing was invented, it's honestly not a design flaw I think manufacturers can be held responsible for. What I see here is more of a precursor on upcoming mass security issues we're bound to get once our four dimensional world is made obsolete by quantum computing. That day, there'll be an infinite amount of holes and backdoors found, every day.

 

[Uniblab]

If a car company tried to pull the crap Intel has, i.e. selling a car with defective air bags and the fix is to make it drive slower, they'd be out of business. I think everyone who has bought an Intel CPU in the last 5 years should be fully refunded even if it bankrupts them. If the rule of law still existed and Intel wasn't deemed "too big to fail" they'd be forced to do just that.

"Nitrium". In getting my head around the 'bug', I have found out thats its related to getting more performance out of our CPU's. Its almost not a bug. Its a side channel attack. Using unconventional ways to gain information, If you are a sunworshipper and you like having your window open to the outside, but you find out that folks are viewing what you are doing on your computer - you are being side channel attacked if they find some of your personal info. Do you sue the window maker for letting light in? Or do you buy window blinds so the world outside ca no longer see what you are doing when at your computer.
Granted, unconventional means they are held to make a fix. If we get less performance - until they figure out one that isnt as performance inhibiting, its somewhat a trade off for a more secure Pc. Im only suprised that it took so long - and interestingly, a few researchers discovered the 20 year potential within months of each other. Strange world.

 

[therealduckofdeath]

Mischon123, ARM has already confirmed that a lot of their architectures are affected by both exploits, too. Even the upcoming Cortex-A75 is affected by both. I'm not a processor guru, but surely most processors made since the invention multi-core computing is affected, as it's on the speculative processing part they collect the unencrypted information.

 

[Rock_n_Rolla]

Regardless of this PR is crap or sincere customer assurance to adress the issiue, one thing is for sure, AMD's mid and high level Zen processors specially their Threadripper ones are geting a lot of sales just last week and if Intel mismanaged these bugs and regardless of their sincere PR as long as their processors not performing the way it should inspite of their patches and fixes,.. A lot of their profits will go down the drain and will loose major market share to Amd.

 

[redgarl]

I think he wanted to mention, money first, security after. Like he sold his share in November to dodge that whole story. Pure insider trading, that guy should be in jail.

 

[Eblislyge]

Intel has been involved in some serious underhanded nonsense for the last 2 decades. They have been sued over and over and the whole company needs a very large enema.

They need to be forced to issue prorated refunds based upon age of Cpu's affected.

 

[jabliese]

If they change their attitude towards ME, I will take this pledge seriously.

 

[Doctor Rob]

I think we all need some refunds! IF on average I get 5% less OR like with older CPUs as much as 30% less speed I think I should be able to give them an receipt for the computer / laptop and get that % back in credit off my next computer at least or something like that.. AND if you purchased one of the CPUs in the last 6 months I think you should have the option to return and get the next one or two up in perfornamce IF you would want to.

 

[bigdragon]

I agree that Intel needs to be offering compensation here. I'm not happy that my E-series CPU and Xeon won't be performing to the level they were supposed to anymore.

 

[phobicsq]

Typical BS from a large company. They knew about these issues for years and only when they got outted are they acting like they care. Any cpu sold within the last 5 years should be refunded to the buyer if they have proper documentation.

 

[bit_user]

I wonder how much time/effort they're going to put into finding bugs in AMD and ARM's CPUs that make those guys look bad - and potentially have to workaround with performance-robbing patches.

 

[bit_user]

If a car company tried to pull the crap Intel has, i.e. selling a car with defective air bags and the fix is to make it drive slower, they'd be out of business.

You mean like how Volkswagon's diesel emissions fix reduced power output from their engines?

I think everyone who has bought an Intel CPU in the last 5 years should be fully refunded even if it bankrupts them. If the rule of law still existed and Intel wasn't deemed "too big to fail" they'd be forced to do just that.

Well, then go ahead and join a class action lawsuit. I doubt there's ever been a legal precedent for damages on the order of what you're talking about.

Usually, the courts will try to assess how much value the product lost, as a result of the defect, and award you that much. Probably with some depreciation applied, since you got some use out of it at full performance. Sometimes, punitive damages will scale that amount by a small multiple. So, what we're talking about is something like the price difference between the CPU you bought and the price of a CPU that provided the performance of your patched CPU. Maybe a few x that amount, minus legal fees. So, if you're the type to send in mail-in rebates, then it could be worth your while.

 

[bit_user]

Only US chips have the probs. Makes you think.

LOL... wut?

Where did you hear that?

 

[trashpandacoder]

Oh wow another excuse like BP ceo spills after spills after spills....

Were you expecting them to issue refunds for every cpu they have made since 1995?

At least he isn't asking for his life back.

No, but he sold $39 million worth of stock months after Intel had been notified of the vulnerability (Market Watch syas they were told in June and he sold in October).
That is a pretty blatant crime and he should end up wearing orange for a long time but probably will get off with a slap on the wrist unlike Martha Stewart becaue Intel is a big company , too big for their CEO to fail.

 

[bit_user]

No, but he sold $39 million worth of stock months after Intel had been notified of the vulnerability (Market Watch syas they were told in June and he sold in October).
That is a pretty blatant crime and he should end up wearing orange for a long time but probably will get off with a slap on the wrist unlike Martha Stewart becaue Intel is a big company , too big for their CEO to fail.

He is now formally under investigation by the SEC. The trick is that, in order to secure convictions of white collar crime, they need to prove intent. So, they will probably be looking at what he knew about how it could affect Intel's bottom line, relative to the time of the sale. That, and any communication around the sale that would indicate this was a factor vs. any other convincing rationale he can make for it.

With all that being said, it's not the real issue, here. We just have to accept that until about 2005, nobody even took the possibility of side-band attacks seriously (anyone remember the first such issue with hyperthreading?). These CPUs were all designed with such a mindset, and it's not any one person's fault.

Also, as far as corporate crime goes, I'm a lot more upset at the manipulation of our political system by big corporate money. And that's not even illegal. So, I'm just not all that concerned about what happens to this guy. The bugs aren't his fault, and any punishment will have a lot more to do with insider trading than having any impact on CPU design or marketing.