Slashdot Mirror
Intel Publishes Microcode Security Patches With No Benchmarks Or Profiling Allowed (theregister.co.uk)
Long-time Slashdot reader Bruce Perens writes: The Register reports that Debian is rejecting a new Intel microcode update because of a new license term prohibiting the use of the CPU for benchmarks and profiling.
There is a new license term applied to the new microcode: "You will not, and will not allow any third party to (i) use, copy, distribute, sell or offer to sell the Software or associated documentation; (ii) modify, adapt, enhance, disassemble, decompile, reverse engineer, change or create derivative works from the Software except and only to the extent as specifically required by mandatory applicable laws or any applicable third party license terms accompanying the Software; (iii) use or make the Software available for the use or benefit of third parties; or (iv) use the Software on Your products other than those that include the Intel hardware product(s), platform(s), or software identified in the Software; or (v) publish or provide any Software benchmark or comparison test results." UPDATE:: Intel has reworked the license to no longer prohibit benchmarking. Imad Sousou, corporate VP and general manager of Intel Open Source Technology Center, tweeted on Thursday: "We have simplified the Intel license to make it easier to distribute CPU microcode updates and posted the new version here. As an active member of the open source community, we continue to welcome all feedback and thank the community."
The security fixes are known to significantly slow down Intel processors, which won't just disappoint customers and reduce the public regard of Intel, it will probably lead to lawsuits (if it hasn't already). Suddenly having processors that are perhaps 5% to 10% slower, if they are to be secure, is a significant damage to many companies that run server farms or provide cloud services. I'm not blaming Intel for this, I don't know if Intel could have foreseen the problem. Since some similar exploits have been discovered for AMD and ARM CPUs, the answer could be "no." But certainly customers are upset.
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.
So, lots of people are interested in the speed penalty incurred in the microcode fixes, and Intel has now attempted to gag anyone who would collect information for reporting about those penalties, through a restriction in their license. Bad move. The correct way to handle security problems is to own up to the damage, publish mitigations, and make it possible for your customers to get along. Hiding how they are damaged is unacceptable. Silencing free speech by those who would merely publish benchmarks? Bad business. Customers can't trust your components when you do that.
There is a new license term applied to the new microcode: "You will not, and will not allow any third party to (i) use, copy, distribute, sell or offer to sell the Software or associated documentation; (ii) modify, adapt, enhance, disassemble, decompile, reverse engineer, change or create derivative works from the Software except and only to the extent as specifically required by mandatory applicable laws or any applicable third party license terms accompanying the Software; (iii) use or make the Software available for the use or benefit of third parties; or (iv) use the Software on Your products other than those that include the Intel hardware product(s), platform(s), or software identified in the Software; or (v) publish or provide any Software benchmark or comparison test results." UPDATE:: Intel has reworked the license to no longer prohibit benchmarking. Imad Sousou, corporate VP and general manager of Intel Open Source Technology Center, tweeted on Thursday: "We have simplified the Intel license to make it easier to distribute CPU microcode updates and posted the new version here. As an active member of the open source community, we continue to welcome all feedback and thank the community."
The security fixes are known to significantly slow down Intel processors, which won't just disappoint customers and reduce the public regard of Intel, it will probably lead to lawsuits (if it hasn't already). Suddenly having processors that are perhaps 5% to 10% slower, if they are to be secure, is a significant damage to many companies that run server farms or provide cloud services. I'm not blaming Intel for this, I don't know if Intel could have foreseen the problem. Since some similar exploits have been discovered for AMD and ARM CPUs, the answer could be "no." But certainly customers are upset.
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.
So, lots of people are interested in the speed penalty incurred in the microcode fixes, and Intel has now attempted to gag anyone who would collect information for reporting about those penalties, through a restriction in their license. Bad move. The correct way to handle security problems is to own up to the damage, publish mitigations, and make it possible for your customers to get along. Hiding how they are damaged is unacceptable. Silencing free speech by those who would merely publish benchmarks? Bad business. Customers can't trust your components when you do that.
with these security patches installed, m'ladies
Making a bad situation, worse.
And the bigger question why is he not posting spam and dups like the rest of slashdot editors?
Only buy AMD.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
You do not own a computer chip you are a slave to the software necessary for it to run which is locked down. HACK ON they deserve what they are about to reap! Reversing chips is how most of the locked down hardware was made available to Linux users for most of the early history of the kernel. Intel now wants a total lock down.... SCREW THEM
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
So Intel, as a condition of using your patch to fix the broken shit you sold us, you don't want us to use the patch to empirically determine just how broken your shit was, or else you'll sue us?
I've got the message loud and clear: you're crooked dirtbags.
I don't think I'll be sending any money your way in future.
The Machine stops.
The linked license is for a Memory Latency Checker, not for the ucode patches.
It seems entirely understandable that a company would prohibit sharing results of a profiling tool like this for benchmarking.
Conduct benchmarks anyway, claim they were provided by an "anonymous" source, publish....
The reason they did this is because it slows performance to what I would call a painful crawl. I would post the benchmarks to quantify and prove it but it's not allowed.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
"This time for sure!"
I've had an AMD-64 microcode patch sitting in my update manager for a week or so. I think I'll wait a little longer to apply it,
I don't like being the first wave of test monkeys.
Well kudos to Debian. I am very disappointed in seeing Red Hat, SUSE in saying the licence is fine.
Just goes to show you how close to Windows the big commercial Linux Distro are moving.
I hope that the part of Intel with some sense will wake up to what that other part of Intel is doing and fix this, quickly. When there is a company that big, it has a multiple personality disorder. Obviously this time somebody didn't think through the implications of their legal language.
Bruce Perens.
what I took away was "Go buy an AMD processor".
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That's like offering a upgrade (downgrade more like) to your supercar and never being able to tell anyone about how much better it is than before.. never being allowed to start a stopwTch when to stomp on the accelerator!!! If I had time I would post results to a pastebin account from a coffee shop with a Pringles canntenna on a raspberrypi running Tor that gets launched as soon as I'm done!!
How much Cocain does a lawyer need to rack up to get you to the point where they think this is ok?
Intel can put "You will not (i) exercise any of your first amendment rights ever again." in their license. That doesn't make it enforceable.
I bet Intel would be too chicken-shit to even sue over this license breach.
Is a judge really going to say that a software license, to fix a defect in a product, can rise to the level of an NDA (non-disclosure agreement)?
The precedent set by a counter suit for a full refund plus court costs will have Intel scrambling, tail between legs, to change this license text.
The link at "a new license term" is to a license for a different product. I'm sure I didn't write that :-)
Bruce Perens.
Someone at Intel might want to read about the Streisand effect.
This is why I use debian and AMD
Our new microcode reduces performance so much that we must muzzle those who analyze these things for a living to prevent them disclosing their results lest it negatively impact our stock price in a manner sufficient to affect the valuation of those in our organization whose position begins with XXO (Something Something Officer), at least until such time as the proper retirements and/or significant stock sales are complete.
Use Transmata chips.
Will I lose the right to use the CPU?
"as specifically required by ... any applicable third party license terms accompanying the Software"
Debian packages the software and redistributes it with the GPL, Intel now has to has to abide by the GPL!
So.....
Anyone got a link to some benchmarks?
Someone probably just did a quick copy and paste job from another license and didn't bother to edit out the bits that don't make sense. When you remember that at least half the people in any given company are probably faking it, it's not all that surprising. Hopefully, some media coverage will get the attention of someone higher up at Intel who will say it was a mistake (even if it wasn't) and push out a revised license that doesn't include the offending bit.
I already expected to see either a link here in /. or real data on the effect this code has on CPU performance. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Refusal to completely disable harmful management engine
False equivalence PR doublespeak on Meltdown
16 lanes is a woefully inadequate joke
ECC is AWOL
Insane strong-arming and political games to attempt to hide dirty laundry.
Intel doesn't deserve my business.
There are much stronger consumer protection laws in many countries, the EU for example
-- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
a AMD CPU. Enjoy some benchmarks.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Why not? I certainly do, and evidence is that they knew about these vulns for a while (especially Foreshadow) and said nothing. During that time, many ppl purchased products on the strength of benchmarks they knew would be revised. This is close to the definition of false advertising, at the very least.
But put that aside... the security aspect is much more important, much more damaging to the average person.
So, yeah. I blame Intel.
Intel is guilty of attempting to undermine national security and whomever attempted this bullshit should be charged accordingly. Every qualified security expert should look carefully at this code and publish their findings post haste.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
"Many computer users don't allow outside or unprivileged users to run on their CPUs"
Your browser is running some outside unprivileged JavaScript for almost every page you visit. One of the exploits was specifically described for JavaScript running in a browser.
You don't even need to be able to execute code. Even code that would traditionally be considered harmless could potentially be used for side channel attacks if you e.g. control the input data. That invoice your ISP sent you as a PDF could potentially use a harmless piece of code inside Adobe Reader to do something harmful.
The fact that it has not been demonstrated yet does not mean it can't be done.
Intel has not gone bankrupt yet due to the large existing install base of Windows computers running on x86 and its derivatives. However, the world is going mobile - and that's a realm that is neither dominated by Intel x86 nor Microsoft Windows. Plus, with Satya Nadella at Microsoft's helm, I would be willing to bet that at some point in the future, Microsoft will reduce Windows to a mere API running atop Linux, redirecting its efforts to Microsoft Office and other profitable applications, as well as Microsoft Azure. If and when that happens, Intel is screwed.
I find it ironic that when the features in question were having a positive listing in benchmarks, everyone and their dog was toting it especially when it came to AMD comparisons (yeah AMD's going to fail because we're better than you). Several years later AMD is doing much better and Intel is afraid of benchmarks because it makes them, and their fanbase look really, really bad.
Vote against Intel's malarkey with your money.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Intel is AMAZINGLY self-destructive, IMO!
Intel says this: Intel's Brian Krzanich is forced out as CEO after 'consensual relationship' with employee. Another story: New details emerge on the office affair that led to Intel CEO Brian Krzanich's surprising resignation on Thursday.
Do you believe this quote? "The office affair which sparked Intel CEO Brian Krzanich's surprise resignation on Thursday started a decade ago and ended before he became CEO in 2013, The Wall Street Journal reported."
I'm guessing that Intel is trying to hide the real reasons that CEO Brian Krzanich is no longer CEO: 1) The Sceptre and Meltdown vulnerabilities in nearly all Intel CPUs, problems that began with former CEO Paul S. Otellini. 2) He used inside information to profit: Intel was aware of the chip vulnerability when its CEO sold off $24 million in company stock.
The new Intel CEO is Robert Swan. He joined Intel in September 2016 as CFO.
One of the most self-destructive acts is to appear to lie. Then everything else is examined as also possibly a lie.
We are a giant corporation who will push against the will of the people
*corporation gets crushed*
Well fuck...
Guns don't kill people; flesh displacement kills people.
Guns don't kill people; going into shock kills people.
Guns don't kill people; organ failure kills people.
Guns don't kill people; bleeding out kills people.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
So Intel is saying if you want to benchmark to decide if you want to join the class action, you can't provide a detailed reason that you're joining the class? Lawsuits are a matter of public record - a judge is going to laugh at that kind of restriction. How does Intel expect it's going to enforce this?
Let's see a million people tweet their slowdown measurements and then it'll be Intel Legal's move. Somebody come up with the hashtag.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
and will intel force MS to trun this on in windows even on AMD systems?
You can ignore stupid shit like this. Intel can sue for you for looking cross eyed if they wanted to. It does not mean that they will win even if you lose everything defending yourself from it.
No company can legally require a person this kind of performative obedience under any circumstance as a sold product like this. Additionally, there have already been cases where judges have rendered TOS/EULA agreements as total bullshit and unenforceable. Especially after a sale has already been completed, just look at the Sony Linux feature removal class action on the PS3 that cost them millions.
That said, it could still be a nightmare to deal with but that is the nature of SLAP lawsuits to begin with. The intention is not to win, but to financially drain you into a loss or to scare people... mainly the websites publishing benchmark data.
One wrong move by Intel and they will be facing the same kind of fucking class action lawsuit themselves. Everyone should slap so many fucking benchmarks online that intels heads spin!
Apparently Intel just hired a new lawyer, and he was doing his best to show how productive he was even before receiving the mandatory corporate legal training.
Don't worry, the boys are on their way to his office now with Intel-inside baseball bats. The next bunch of legalese won't be so suicidally dysfunctional.
where are the Ryzen/TR IPMI boards? epyc is overkill for some workloads.
Yeah, that license is invalid in the EU. They have to check first, and have proof that you agreed, before they send you the files. If they do it without, they just did it without attaching any conditions. So do whatever you like. (As if they could stop you, in any case... lol)
They stopped being Linux, when they adopted systemd.
They are a PoetteringOS distribution now. Which just temporarily uses the Linux kernel for the transition phase, until systemd gets its kernel component.
The license also mentions NDA's and Pre-Release agreements
Looks like license they would include with pre-release/beta software.
7. CONFIDENTIALITY. The terms and conditions of this Agreement, exchanged
confidential information, as well as the Software are subject to the terms and
conditions of the Non-Disclosure Agreement(s) or Intel Pre-Release Loan
Agreement(s) (referred to herein collectively or individually as "NDA") entered
into by and in force between Intel and You, and in any case no less
confidentiality protection than You apply to Your information of similar
sensitivity. If You would like to have a contractor perform work on Your behalf
that requires any access to or use of Software, You must obtain a written
confidentiality agreement from the contractor which contains terms and
conditions with respect to access to or use of Software no less restrictive
than those set forth in this Agreement, excluding any distribution rights and
use for any other purpose, and You will remain fully liable to Intel for the
actions and inactions of those contractors. You may not use Intel's name in any
publications, advertisements, or other announcements without Intel's prior
written consent.
How would you run Intel microcode on an AMD CPU?
may not that but the other non microcode Intel fixes.
so run SUSE, Arch, and Red Hat and lose the right to bench your own systems?
I don't think that yum update can show an EULA or even an YUM update -y && reboot can stop and force you to read it.
Intel can say you are not our customer call your dealer / distributor for an refund.
well When you started your car you said yes to the new eula. Don't like it you can trade your car in (no full refund)
we can file an copyright claim / dmca take down or even an press theft changes some of our cpus are over $1K-5K each so that is grand larceny.
Now an real lawyer can kill that BS but some small guys may just back down vs $$$ to defending them form the big boys at intel.
is just for places like Puget Systems / LinusTechTips / etc that if you bench it then you get cut off them from free parts / Engineering Samples? But they some how copied the that EULA into the update one?
Whoops, this is basically an ad for Ryzen.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
This is bad. According to my experience, it is over 25% slower than before the fix.
n/t.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
How can Microsoft deploy this microcode to customers without banning benchmarking under Windows? Are they just betting Intel isn't going to sue them?
This is bad. My system seems to be over 25% slower. This kind of huge performance hit is unacceptable.
Since you cannot run the benchmark (in this case due to legal restrictions) just write FAIL* next to it. Then put the actual values for AMD, VIA and DMP CPUs. Once a few dozen articles get published where even DMP beats Intel's most expensive chips, they will wake up.
* FAIL means that the chip was unable to complete the benchmark due to faulty engineering or legal restrictions.
Some countries have decent consumer law - like NZ. Statutory Refund.
As I cant get a unqualified security fix, I will just return it. Dell, Acer and Leveno and others will be very unhappy if it becomes a tide.
They have been very quiet on Mobile Phone ARM chips, but as independent apps are released, there will be returns.
Pleas post these benchmarks. Thank you, the US.
Meaning you cannot foist a license like that onto somebody, furthermore for academic research you are always allowed to do benchmark and no goddamn license can remove your basic right (such contract become null and void by law). So this is pretty much an american market only license.
Damn, if only VW would have done that, "You shall not measure how much crap our diesel produce" in the EULA of every car, no billion fine...
Maybe I don't understand correctly, but this section "You will not, and will not allow any third party to (i) USE, copy, distribute, sell or offer to sell the Software or associated documentation;..." doesn't prohibits the very use of software?
For Intel to go all out like this, it is probably in the 20-30% range. And we now know that Intel put out CPUs knowingly with these flaws because they could top the performance charts. The reasons for picking an AMD for your next build are stacking up.
So if I am an IT services provider looking after systems for my Customers and need to patch this ... then the first thing they will ask is "what performance impact did your testing of the patch show?" ... which I can't now tell them as it would be providing them with comparison test results between a system before and after patching ...
Without providing this then they will not agree to the change being made ... which means the system will have to remain unpatched and vulnerable.
This really fits with the Manifort/Cohen news, but it's on point, nonetheless.
I wonder why the new /. owners haven't allowed a story on that? :)
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
it has better performance and price anyway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Side channel attacks are inherently benchmarking attacks (in particular, the spectre attacks check how far speculative execution is getting for carefully selected workloads), and benchmarking is no longer allowed.
Problem solved.
Hooray.
"We are not allowed to provide any benchmark results, but we can say that if you consider buying an Intel i9, we should maybe inform you that we have an Athlon that we don't need anymore and you might be interested."
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Sounds like somebody stuck a file in there without actually talking to legal.
I've recently signed an NDA and I don't know why they wanted me to sign it, as what it covered was something I either didn't get into, or was too late to sign an NDA for (entering discussions to enter a joint something). Since it was a zero-value NDA, I didn't raise much stink and signed it.
When asked about the source of the NDA, the office manager just said it's a template that's been in the company since before he joined and he has to give it to people to sign.
... because all those other terms are completely reasonable for an open-source project to agree to?!
So did the Linux distro's that did accept this license modify their kernel to disable the BogoMIPS feature?
0x or or snor perron?!
Phoronix seems to have disregarded that part and published some benchmarks anyway. https://www.phoronix.com/scan....
Just to get my curse in. Next laptop will have an AMD proc. And screw corrupt sh***Y System76 while we're at it.
The 20180703 micro code release has the mitigations for a set of server class CPUs and comes with the old micro code license, which does not contain any of those restrictions. Also experimentation has shown, that the micro code variant for flushing L1D on VMENTER is not really much different slowdown wise from the software L1D flush mitigation which is used by the Linux kernel/KVM when the magic new MSR is not available.
While Joe Desktop User does not worry much about the L1TF mess, he very much is interested in the other fixes and mitigations which come with those updates.
It's a sad state of affairs, that corporates seem to be able to screw their customers in any way they see fit. Seems to be a common scheme. Just look at the Diesel disaster where now the car owners are facing driving restrictions in certain cities because their cars do not comply to the emission standards.
When intel comes to sue you, counter-sue with a SLAPP suit. Refuse to settle.
Take them for a few billion.
Intel accused of age discrimination (May 28, 2018) Subtitle: "US federal investigators are looking into Intel's layoffs of 12,000 employees since 2016."
Judging from personal conversations with Intel employees and comments on web sites, Intel is badly managed:
Quote from thelayoff.com, Nov. 23, 2017:
"As a person who worked there several times as contract employee, which makes up most of the workforce. I have seen this happen many times, where older and higher paid blue badges get shown the door, and sometimes escorted out like criminals. This has created a paranoid environment among those who are left, so everyone starts back stabbing each other because they don't want to be the next one to be booted. And creates animosity to the contract workers who are treated like crap. So any workplace cohesion gets thrown out the window, because everyone is circling their prospective wagons."
Just put the benchmark results onto a public blockchain register. Works to prevent Chinese censorship. It will definitely help Intel to understand how wrong they are.
I wouldn't use any existing or currently holding keys for this.
funny how the poor have to play by the rules but the rich people can steal, lie and cheat and that's ok ... Intel, and other excessively large multinational corporations are clearly above the law and their behaviour is unethical, exploitive and often illegal. The system is corrupt and only comprehensive corporate reform will fix this. Corporations must not be used to evade responsibility for immoral actions by overly-affluent individuals.
Face facts, they, the upper class, have enslaved the middle and lower classes. If the people want real freedom, they'll need to stop economic slavery.
So now the marketers will disparage Debian by saying that they run insecure code that is subject to side channel attacks.
The correct way to handle security problems is to own up to the damage, publish mitigations, and make it possible for your customers to get along.
The moral high road is easy to preach when you have nothing to lose. But, it's another story when doing so will result in litigation that is likely to cost the company billions of dollars and may even sink the company.
I agree that the mitigation is largely unnecessary for most users. But, most distros are incorporating the fixes and Microsoft is too, slowing down everything. Even more so than usual.
Execute the CEO and executives. Shut it all down. Euthanize the family of the subhuman who actually wrote that clause.
They will probably sue wikileaks for publishing benchmarks now.
I'm sorry that happened to you.
You mentioned "after hours" twice. Your story might be a reminder that if you're at a work conference with the team from work, don't do or say things that are Not Safe for Work. I have other friends, not co-workers, for NSFW discussions. If you're with co-workers, follow the guidelines you'd use for conversations with co-workers - no matter what time it is.
The Debian team's response here is appropriate. They should have also responded with a "Fuck you."
niittyniemi railed:P
So Intel, as a condition of using your patch to fix the broken shit you sold us, you don't want us to use the patch to empirically determine just how broken your shit was, or else you'll sue us?
I've got the message loud and clear: you're crooked dirtbags.
Mmm ... no.
As another Anonymous Coward pointed out halfway up the page from here, the summary is (surprise!) poorly written. It leaves the reader with the impression that Intel is trying to use its EULA to suppress benchmark reviews of its microcode fixes for the latest set of predictive execution bugs. It's not.
What it IS doing is forbidding developers from sharing benchmark data about its own, proprietary microcode development tools, to whit:
“Development Tools” means the development, evaluation, production, or test tool software, and associated documentation or other collateral, identified in the “development_tools.txt” text files, if any, included in the Materials.
You're perfectly free to publish before-and-after benchmarks of the impact of Intel's current - and previous - microcode fixes on CPU performance to your geeky heart's content. You're simply forbidden from using the tools in Intel's own developer software (which you have to buy from Intel) to obtain the results you publish.
(And, of course, you're forbidden to give, resell, reverse engineer, or share the tools themselves, because they're commercial software, the redistribution terms of which are protected by international copyright law. Nota bene: the topic under discussion here is NOT international copyright law. Therefore, please confine any rants about the evils of copyright to your mother's basement.)
There are ZERO restrictions imposed by the license terms for Intel's own developer tools on the use of third-party test software to establish performance benchmarks and evaluations - and no trace of attempted prior restraint on publishing those results.
Once again, the problem is that The Guardian has conflated Intel-proprietary test software with the microcode fixes themselves, and has invented a scheme by Intel to suppress publication of all benchmarks, including those produced by third-party tools, because Richard Speed, its reporter, misunderstood the EULA about which the Debian people are complaining. And, unfortunately, Bruce failed to catch Speed's mistake before posting this story.
Early in this discussion, he mentions in a comment that he "screws up" as often as anybody else around here - and this is an exemplar of that.
I think Mr. Perens is a real asset to the Slashdot community. His comments are usually thoughtful, informed, and often well-documented. I admire the fact that, when he gets things wrong, unlike many users here, he swiftly and cheerfully admits his errors and disavows them.
Would that more of Slashdot's users had that kind of intellectual honesty ...
(Posting as AC only so as not to undo prior upmods in this thread.)
--
Check out my novel ...
Federal civil servants just doesn't feel comfortable letting the general population know how many CPU cycles they are, ahem, re-appropriating to their activities.
... how selfish are you ??
They are already uneasy about people finding out how much of their data and cell bills are getting eaten up by their activities.
It's been hard enough getting enough opposition research and unmasking all the GOP bad guys. It's not their fault they couldn't do their jobs properly and get Hillary in the white house.
And now they're losing their jobs because they couldn't get their candidate in? How disappointing that must be.
So think about the comfort of the federal people entrusted with making sure their people get elected and need to hide how much of our device resources they are using.
If you don't think about that
Anybody who is not in a country that appreciates these limitations can still legally run benchmarks and publish them. I'm looking forward to seeing these metrics go public anyway.
If Intel sued someone for violating these terms would SLAPP apply?
If the license snipet in the summary is correct, it is worded such that you aren't even allowed to use the patch: "You...will not... use...the Software" :P
And allowing benchmark again.
And chance it was an old beta license?
They probably just cut corners, just like the others, in order to be able to claim better performance and optimization...
The media has so over blown this and the fixes be it firmware, OS updates, or microcode has manged to stay ahead of it with rather minimal affects on performance for most users. If we actually had more proof of attacks occurring in the wild and affecting systems. Then this would be news worthy, but so far its quiet and this only proves how difficult these hardware exploits are to achieve any sort of success.
Seems someone in PR realized how bad this looked, as they've updated the license: https://01.org/mcu-path-licens...
In life, not all of your questions will be answered; all of your answers will be questioned.
They build a general purpose CPU - and it is owned by the person who purchases it. How can this possibly be enforced? It feels like selling car, and stating that the new owner can't drag race and post the times.
Although I read it as distinct pieces. "You" won't provide documentation to others explaining how to look inside, and also won't provide benchmark software / results, nor documentation that uses these "Secrets" to benchmark.
but some random person off the street can certainly figure it out themselves. "You" can't use your insider knowledge to help them.
Contract clauses that forbid benchmark publication (unless the vendor likes them) are called DeWitt clauses. The clause was originally created to squelch database research being performed by Dr. David DeWitt. These should be illegal, but Oracle certainly rigorously enforces them. There was a law passed in 2016 that prevented similar problems for Yelp, but DeWitt clauses haven't been struck down yet (and should be). See my post, "The DeWitt clause’s censorship should be illegal" by David A. Wheeler (2017-06-25): https://www.dwheeler.com/essay...
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
https://01.org/mcu-path-license-2018
Man I'm glad I'm in construction. I would hate to have to watch my mouth at every turn and not be able to make crude jokes.