The copyright claims are valid if his video copied the white noise audio track from other videos, which can easily be determined by comparing the wave forms.
I don't see how marketing plays into it - are you saying the presence of any errata means they are marketing-focused rather than engineering-focused? What exactly is Intel guilty of in the article? Using less provocative titles for their chip bugs than what the media came up with?
What was Intel supposed to call the bug? "The Pentium sucks and can be remotely disabled erratum?"
Continuing:
Moen, who is based in California, said that at the time, Intel's "judo-move response" was to create an information page claiming it dealt with the bug by linking to each of the various x86 OS vendors' bug-fix pages.
Again, what alternative did Intel have? It couldn't patch existing chips so it directed customers to patches provided by OS vendors.
I'm not sure I understand the point of this article.
Google's technique is to patch binaries so that branches/calls don't use the branch prediction mechanism of the CPU, which has a small performance hit but much smaller than KPTI. I suppose the presumption is that harmful code which uses the technique would have to compile it into their binary since most OS's prevent the self-modification of code segments/TLB entries once they've been placed into memory by the OS loader. But what about code segments generated entirely at runtime, including from interpreters and libraries like libjit?
FTA: The key players were independent researcher Paul Kocher and the team at a company called Cyberus Technology, said Gruss, while Jann Horn at Google Project Zero (GOOGL.O) came to similar conclusions independently.
Which begs the question - how long has the NSA known about this too?
Due to the performance impact of this workaround it should have an option to disable it like Linux is providing. An alternate, more refined approach would be to selectively enable the kernel page-table isolation on a per-process basis, based on either user configuration or an automatic trust determination such as whether the app is signed by a trusted certificate source (ie, downloaded, unsigned apps would run with page isolation enabled).
I read through Google's Meltdown paper (https://meltdownattack.com/meltdown.pdf). While there are several cumulative vulnerabilities that make this exploit possible, the most important of which is kernel address-space discovery via speculative data accesses which leave DCACHE lines in their wake, the root vulnerability of actually being able to read the contents of data comes down to an exception race condition. From the document:
Listing 2: The core instruction sequence of Meltdown. An inaccessible kernel address is moved to a register, raising an exception. The subsequent instructions are already executed out of order before the exception is raised, leaking the content of the kernel address through the indirect memory access. ... When the uOPs finish their execution, they retire inorder, and, thus, their results are committed to the architectural state. During the retirement, any interrupts and exception that occurred during the execution of the instruction are handled. Thus, if the MOV instruction that loads the kernel address is retired, the exception is registered and the pipeline is flushed to eliminate all results of subsequent instructions which were executed out of order. However, there is a race condition between raising this exception and our attack step 2 which we describe below.
And why AMD and ARM may not be vulnerable to Meltdown:
6.4 Limitations on ARM and AMD We also tried to reproduce the Meltdown bug on several ARM and AMD CPUs. However, we did not manage to successfully leak kernel memory with the attack described in Section 5, neither on ARM nor on AMD. The reasons for this can be manifold. First of all, our implementation might simply be too slow and a more optimized version might succeed. For instance, a more shallow out-of-order execution pipeline could tip the race condition towards against the data leakage. Similarly, if the processor lacks certain features, e.g., no re-order buffer, our current implementation might not be able tol leak data. However, for both ARM and AMD, the toy example as described in Section 3 works reliably, indicating that out-of-order execution generally occurs and instructions past illegal memory accesses are also performed.
The suppliers in question manufacture parts specific to the iPhone X and the report also references hiring patterns at the factory which specifically manufactures the iPhone X. That was your last chance to be useful. Goodbye - all your future replies will be ignored and unread.
If want me to continue engaging you in conversation then you're going to need to be right about something at least once, otherwise I have nothing to learn from you and I'm just wasting my time.
We assume that the attacker can generate acoustic
signals in the vicinity of the victim device, at frequencies
within the audible range (2 - 20 kHz). The attacker can either
apply the signal by using an external speaker or exploit a
speaker near the target.
In order to get near the HD the attacker will likely have to pass in front of one or more of the security cameras that are streaming to the HD they're looking to interrupt, which means there will still be footage of them . And if they can get that close to the HD they can just physical destroy it anyway.
That's why they're called anonymous sources - they're not going to reveal who they are or which parts they supply to Apple because doing so would involve reprisals from Apple.
Zero proof? The reduced estimates are based on lower orders to Apple's suppliers. Without their parts Apple can't build phones so it's a reasonable way to gauge future demand.
Elizabeth Holmes isn't worried about Theranos achieving the "product and operational milestones" condition for the loan - she's an expert at faking those.
That doesn't seem very advanced to me. Advanced would be centralized scanning via a daemon installed on every phone, reporting back to the mothership periodically.
Tim Cook rails against the privacy-invading business model of other tech companies, then we learn they accept billions in secret payments from Google to enable said business model on their phones.
Apple release a software fix they claims resolves a shutdown issue they previously denied even exists, then we learn the "fix" was a hack that throttles the phone performance to unusable levels, which serves to both save them hundreds of millions in additional recall costs while also surreptitiously motivating users to upgrade to a newer model to get a usable phone again.
When I first read your post I thought Kellog's was getting into the blockchain game. I can see the prospectus - a drawing of Tony the Tiger holding a cinder block and gold chain with a bright red "They're Grrreat!" emblazoned across the page.
A QR code on the container will tell you the source of every tea bag used to create your drink, and also tell you who was tea bagged buying the company's stock.
Where are your links for iPhones other than the 6s? Hundreds of millions of iPhones sold and no widespread issues and suddenly they start appearing on the 6s, but there's no issue specific to the 6s?
Yes, I'm refusing to acknowledge that non-iPhone 6 iPhones have an issue with spontaneously shutting down when using "washed out" batteries. I'm supporting that assertion with the fact that out of the hundreds of millions of phones Apple sold prior to the 6s, there was no widespread reports about phones shutting down with aging batteries. These problems started and ended with the 6s.
Bad batch of batteries even though iPhone 6s owners outside Apple's two-month window experienced the same problem, myself included? And the iPhone 6s runs iOS 11 so why wouldn't Apple carry the fix over from IOS 10 for that phone? As for me not explaining why other phones with aging batteries display the same problem, that's because no other phone had a systemic issue shutting down with aging batteries, but we covered that already.
Slashdot Mirror
The copyright claims are valid if his video copied the white noise audio track from other videos, which can easily be determined by comparing the wave forms.
I don't see how marketing plays into it - are you saying the presence of any errata means they are marketing-focused rather than engineering-focused? What exactly is Intel guilty of in the article? Using less provocative titles for their chip bugs than what the media came up with?
What was Intel supposed to call the bug? "The Pentium sucks and can be remotely disabled erratum?"
Continuing:
Moen, who is based in California, said that at the time, Intel's "judo-move response" was to create an information page claiming it dealt with the bug by linking to each of the various x86 OS vendors' bug-fix pages.
Again, what alternative did Intel have? It couldn't patch existing chips so it directed customers to patches provided by OS vendors.
I'm not sure I understand the point of this article.
Google's technique is to patch binaries so that branches/calls don't use the branch prediction mechanism of the CPU, which has a small performance hit but much smaller than KPTI. I suppose the presumption is that harmful code which uses the technique would have to compile it into their binary since most OS's prevent the self-modification of code segments/TLB entries once they've been placed into memory by the OS loader. But what about code segments generated entirely at runtime, including from interpreters and libraries like libjit?
FTA: The key players were independent researcher Paul Kocher and the team at a company called Cyberus Technology, said Gruss, while Jann Horn at Google Project Zero (GOOGL.O) came to similar conclusions independently.
Which begs the question - how long has the NSA known about this too?
And I want a large Cherry Slurpee included as well.
Due to the performance impact of this workaround it should have an option to disable it like Linux is providing. An alternate, more refined approach would be to selectively enable the kernel page-table isolation on a per-process basis, based on either user configuration or an automatic trust determination such as whether the app is signed by a trusted certificate source (ie, downloaded, unsigned apps would run with page isolation enabled).
And why AMD and ARM may not be vulnerable to Meltdown:
The suppliers in question manufacture parts specific to the iPhone X and the report also references hiring patterns at the factory which specifically manufactures the iPhone X. That was your last chance to be useful. Goodbye - all your future replies will be ignored and unread.
If want me to continue engaging you in conversation then you're going to need to be right about something at least once, otherwise I have nothing to learn from you and I'm just wasting my time.
All major journalistic outlets use anonymous sources, including the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, and Bloomberg. They have a semblance of reliability.
From the paper:
We assume that the attacker can generate acoustic signals in the vicinity of the victim device, at frequencies within the audible range (2 - 20 kHz). The attacker can either apply the signal by using an external speaker or exploit a speaker near the target.
In order to get near the HD the attacker will likely have to pass in front of one or more of the security cameras that are streaming to the HD they're looking to interrupt, which means there will still be footage of them . And if they can get that close to the HD they can just physical destroy it anyway.
That's why they're called anonymous sources - they're not going to reveal who they are or which parts they supply to Apple because doing so would involve reprisals from Apple.
Zero proof? The reduced estimates are based on lower orders to Apple's suppliers. Without their parts Apple can't build phones so it's a reasonable way to gauge future demand.
Based on supplier-estimates, so perhaps not the most precise way to measure potential sales:
https://www.phonearena.com/news/Going-strong-the-Apple-Watch-is-en-route-to-set-another-sales-record-in-2018_id100638
Elizabeth Holmes isn't worried about Theranos achieving the "product and operational milestones" condition for the loan - she's an expert at faking those.
That doesn't seem very advanced to me. Advanced would be centralized scanning via a daemon installed on every phone, reporting back to the mothership periodically.
Tim Cook rails against the privacy-invading business model of other tech companies, then we learn they accept billions in secret payments from Google to enable said business model on their phones.
Apple release a software fix they claims resolves a shutdown issue they previously denied even exists, then we learn the "fix" was a hack that throttles the phone performance to unusable levels, which serves to both save them hundreds of millions in additional recall costs while also surreptitiously motivating users to upgrade to a newer model to get a usable phone again.
These are not the actions of an ethical company.
And the odds they'll attempt to hide those bugs in software releases that compromise the performance and usability of their phones.
Clever post, would mod up if I hadn't already posted to the thread.
When I first read your post I thought Kellog's was getting into the blockchain game. I can see the prospectus - a drawing of Tony the Tiger holding a cinder block and gold chain with a bright red "They're Grrreat!" emblazoned across the page.
A QR code on the container will tell you the source of every tea bag used to create your drink, and also tell you who was tea bagged buying the company's stock.
Where are your links for iPhones other than the 6s? Hundreds of millions of iPhones sold and no widespread issues and suddenly they start appearing on the 6s, but there's no issue specific to the 6s?
Yes, I'm refusing to acknowledge that non-iPhone 6 iPhones have an issue with spontaneously shutting down when using "washed out" batteries. I'm supporting that assertion with the fact that out of the hundreds of millions of phones Apple sold prior to the 6s, there was no widespread reports about phones shutting down with aging batteries. These problems started and ended with the 6s.
Bad batch of batteries even though iPhone 6s owners outside Apple's two-month window experienced the same problem, myself included? And the iPhone 6s runs iOS 11 so why wouldn't Apple carry the fix over from IOS 10 for that phone? As for me not explaining why other phones with aging batteries display the same problem, that's because no other phone had a systemic issue shutting down with aging batteries, but we covered that already.