If they have nearly unlimited resources to hide or obfuscate something, there is basically no way to know. It doesn't matter what they say, does it work, does it not work, what does it do, what does it not do. We can't know, because anything could be another layer of the cover story.
Not really. It's easy to slip and blow your leg off.
MISRA C (and, I suppose, even Ada) exist precisely because aphorisms like this don't work in practice.
As a firmware programmer using C on a daily basis, I can say that of course you're wrong, because all you did is contradict me and you offered no reason at all to believe what you said, instead of what I said.
Presumably you just don't know.
MISRA C exists for reasons, but it also not a term that embedded C programmers use on a daily basis the way "C99" is. It exists, so what? It is like saying that Agile programming exists; so what? Existing doesn't tell you anything. MISRA C exists, obviously C programmers like extra standards. It is as stupid as saying that C++ exists, so C must have [whatever].
Maybe in the future everything you compile gets fuzzed.
Looking for what? UB? Fuzzing is a testing technique, not a silver bullet.
You're the one who claims you thought somebody was talking about a silver bullet, but only you were. So lets just agree, you were wrong about there being a silver bullet in the discussion.
You're living in an alternate reality where security by obscurity and such like protects your ass.
I'm throwing down the gauntlet and challenging you to show where I said anything positive about "security by obscurity." I'm serious! You claim to know what that means, but I didn't even talk about it, and you're pretty confused about what I said. So attempt to find the part you're talking about, so that I can explain what the words mean.
No, actually, companies involved with the "big cloud industry" (LOL) generally hire engineers, not neckbeards.
It is funny that you want to imply you are part of some in crowd, and I must not be.
You've been here a couple weeks, but you might not actually be all that much more important than everybody else.;) Using first person doesn't improve your argument, or make you sound knowlege-y.
they do not phone up Saint Ignucius to ask if they're doing it right, and they certainly don't check to see if Linus has any relevant rants
You're wrong, they do. They send money with it, and they are nice and polite, it's their job.
LOL don't forget to wipe your chin, your neckbeard isn't going to soak all that up!
Right, but it wasn't off-topic. I didn't mean to imply that all my comments were uniquely tailored as a narrow response to you. You brought up Alcoa but cited it in a weird way for this context, and didn't explain why it would be relevant. The short answer is just that it isn't relevant, but bare conclusions have less value than explanations. I really don't care if the guy you were replying to was even more wrong. Lots of slashdot readers don't remember the details and haven't read any explanations since the MS antitrust trial, and it has been a couple years now.
If I saved one neckbeard from blathering on about how Intel is going to get in trouble and making a fool of himself, it is a successful public service for the listeners spared.:)
In my city, each property ends at the sidewalk. Then between the sidewalk and the street is a strip of city-owned land called (confusingly) the Right of Way. (Not to be confused with streets, which are not a right of way but are a place where you have a right of way. Which is not to be confused with having the right to use the way right this moment...)
Anyways, if somebody places a TV on the grass between the sidewalk and the street, and there is not a moving van next to it, then it considered free. Before throwing things away, people often put them in a box and place them by the street. It means you can take it, it has been abandoned. Although if nobody takes it, you have to un-abandon it and throw it away, or else it is littering. In any case, people put TVs, stereos, food, all sorts of things. If it is left 5 feet away, on the private side of the sidewalk, nobody touches it. Well, if it was a bike it would get stolen, but if it was a TV nobody would touch it. (TVs don't have solid resale value these days)
Unlocked bikes abandoned in public are not a clearcut "don't touch it" situation, especially if there are lots of them and they all have a logo of a local business on them. Keeping it, or selling it, might be theft, but riding it around and abandoning it in a similar situation as you found it might be totally legal. Obviously it will vary by jurisdiction, but it is going to be a matter of splitting hairs for the judge almost anywhere.
In this case, the bikes are not actually restricted to use only by Google employees, so it is clearly legal to ride them around. And if it wasn't legal to ride them, then it wouldn't be legal to abandon them in public bike racks, either! Once the owner's policy is to abandon them in public for later use, it really pushes the hairsplitting towards allowing borrowing.
The idea that working bikes, assembled from "mismatched" (fitting!) parts, would have no value is absurd.
The base price for a non-working used bike is about $15 if complete. $20 if it basically works, but sucks. Take that same bike and just give it a full "tune up" where a bike mechanic cleans it up, oils everything, adjusts all the brakes and gears, now it is worth ~$100.
Go to a bike shop that sells used bikes and check! The "bottom end" is around $100 for a used bike in salable condition, and you have to go to a discount junk store to find anything cheaper. Thieves sell crappy bikes for $20-50, and they often give them a basic tune up first! It isn't a lot of money, but it is enough for some tweaker to get high, so they'll do it.
Statistics show both that there was more crime in the past, and also that the media spent less time reporting it.
Such that as the crime rate has gone down, public perception about the amount of crime has gone up. It turns out, public perception of crime closely tracks media reports of crime, rather than police reports of crime.
It may be that crime in his neighborhood went down, but the rate of neighbors complaining about it went up, because they were more exposed to crime reports in the media.
It sounds right, because compute is the key word. But is it *-ing something?! No, the air is not computing anything. Yes, it is doing things you could observe to compute something.
The exploit uses way more CPU than the system normally does. It fully loads the system down, in order to get enough state to make predictions. You have to first install the malware to your system, then let your system chew itself at 100%, and not notice, and then go ahead and authenticate using that system while it is obviously malfunctioning.
It is dangerous, but it is highly unlikely for millions of computers to have had authentication secrets exposed. And it is not something you can just hide quietly. It is not anything as dangerous as a USB keylogger, for example.
Also, you left out an important disclaimer: You are not a lawyer! lolololol
If something "goes wrong" with "your product," you're rarely responsible for anything other than the cost of the faulty product. But it would have to be totally faulty. If it blows up because of a manufacturing defect, there is liability. If a criminal misuses it and hurts you with it, there is generally not any liability for the manufacturer.
The tort system in the US is based on the English Common Law system, and it has nothing to do with products. It has to do with harm (torts) that were committed to you. It isn't enough to claim something was "wrong" with a product, and point a finger. You have to show you were harmed, and you have to show it was somebody's fault. "My game ran 5% slower, waaaaaaa" is not going to be seen to be a harm that was caused by anybody.
If you have 1000 computers with Intel processors, and you claim they've harmed you because your computer was 5% slower, you've got a really weak claim because if they had known about the problem, your computers would have simply been 5% slower sooner. So you weren't harmed by 5% of the price, or anything like that. I mean, probably they will blame the OS vendor, who will blame the user for not knowing about bugs or not reading the EULA which talks about bugs and liability.;) And nevermind that the sale terms of the CPU probably prevent your claim. Just showing the harm caused by Intel is hard to do, and the attempt likely to be weak.
You can't really "bring a class action into court" in the first place. You have to bring a regular action, and then you request that the Judge make it into a class action for you. You can't just file a class action.
Ultimately, this only allows malware that the user accidentally gave permission to, to do stuff on the CPU, stuff that is actually up to the OS. You're going to have a hard time even showing you were harmed by Intel in that series of events.
The only case that appears like it would be strong would be to claim that Intel harmed you by promising faster speeds than they delivered, but it wasn't due to any gross incompetence. At worst routine incompetence, and the result is only a minor difference in speed. They might get in trouble for not reducing their speed claims after they knew about the problem, so maybe customers from a six month window would get a coupon as Intel's punishment. The lawyers would be most of the cost.
The security holes seem to be entirely the fault of the operating system, which is who is responsible for deciding what code is allowed to run. And even then, none of the malware is likely to come from the OS vendor; the user isn't at fault, but it is the criminals that wrote and delivered the malware who are primarily at fault for any damage done to the user.
Dude, linux is Free Software, that means you don't have to care what the neckbeards say when you use it. The people choosing to use linux servers are not the ones writing the linux kernel, or the ones evangelizing it. When an executive decides to save a bunch of money on their datacenter hardware by using linux as their OS, they do not phone up Saint Ignucius to ask if they're doing it right, and they certainly don't check to see if Linus has any relevant rants.
If Linus' rants were that influential, linux would have high quality print dialogs by now! Or, by a decade ago!
Slashdot Mirror
If they have nearly unlimited resources to hide or obfuscate something, there is basically no way to know. It doesn't matter what they say, does it work, does it not work, what does it do, what does it not do. We can't know, because anything could be another layer of the cover story.
Same as it always was.
You're allowed to have advantages, and it doesn't have to be fair.
What you can't do is harm competition, or harm the customers. If you don't raise prices, you can do a lot to maintain market advantages.
an boot
First time I found a person who pronounces boot with a silent B! lol
Or at least, the whooshing sound you were standing there making while insisting that something was funny.
I'd expect it to be their friends from the BSA that do that part.
You can often make an animated menu with just CSS and GIFs.
But if you're already allowing html5, you can use that for menus too.
I have an older linux box and it started crashing, so I underclocked it and now its fine. You might be onto something there!
At least windows is easy, imagine how hard the linux patch must be to install! ;)
You probably want to toss it in the sea, too, just to be sure.
Also, avoid reinforced concrete, the rebar can act as an antenna.
C is easy if you don't try to do anything clever.
Not really. It's easy to slip and blow your leg off.
MISRA C (and, I suppose, even Ada) exist precisely because aphorisms like this don't work in practice.
As a firmware programmer using C on a daily basis, I can say that of course you're wrong, because all you did is contradict me and you offered no reason at all to believe what you said, instead of what I said.
Presumably you just don't know.
MISRA C exists for reasons, but it also not a term that embedded C programmers use on a daily basis the way "C99" is. It exists, so what? It is like saying that Agile programming exists; so what? Existing doesn't tell you anything. MISRA C exists, obviously C programmers like extra standards. It is as stupid as saying that C++ exists, so C must have [whatever].
Maybe in the future everything you compile gets fuzzed.
Looking for what? UB? Fuzzing is a testing technique, not a silver bullet.
You're the one who claims you thought somebody was talking about a silver bullet, but only you were. So lets just agree, you were wrong about there being a silver bullet in the discussion.
Maybe we just need better automated testing?
C is easy if you don't try to do anything clever. Let the compiler be clever.
But often there is no testing at all. Maybe in the future everything you compile gets fuzzed.
There is absolutely no reason at all to think it is better to package this into the language, when it can be placed anywhere in the build process.
You're living in an alternate reality where security by obscurity and such like protects your ass.
I'm throwing down the gauntlet and challenging you to show where I said anything positive about "security by obscurity." I'm serious! You claim to know what that means, but I didn't even talk about it, and you're pretty confused about what I said. So attempt to find the part you're talking about, so that I can explain what the words mean.
No, actually, companies involved with the "big cloud industry" (LOL) generally hire engineers, not neckbeards.
It is funny that you want to imply you are part of some in crowd, and I must not be.
You've been here a couple weeks, but you might not actually be all that much more important than everybody else. ;) Using first person doesn't improve your argument, or make you sound knowlege-y.
they do not phone up Saint Ignucius to ask if they're doing it right, and they certainly don't check to see if Linus has any relevant rants
You're wrong, they do. They send money with it, and they are nice and polite, it's their job.
LOL don't forget to wipe your chin, your neckbeard isn't going to soak all that up!
Right, but it wasn't off-topic. I didn't mean to imply that all my comments were uniquely tailored as a narrow response to you. You brought up Alcoa but cited it in a weird way for this context, and didn't explain why it would be relevant. The short answer is just that it isn't relevant, but bare conclusions have less value than explanations. I really don't care if the guy you were replying to was even more wrong. Lots of slashdot readers don't remember the details and haven't read any explanations since the MS antitrust trial, and it has been a couple years now.
If I saved one neckbeard from blathering on about how Intel is going to get in trouble and making a fool of himself, it is a successful public service for the listeners spared. :)
Hey look its that guy who gets his "news" off of youtube. LOL
In my city, each property ends at the sidewalk. Then between the sidewalk and the street is a strip of city-owned land called (confusingly) the Right of Way. (Not to be confused with streets, which are not a right of way but are a place where you have a right of way. Which is not to be confused with having the right to use the way right this moment...)
Anyways, if somebody places a TV on the grass between the sidewalk and the street, and there is not a moving van next to it, then it considered free. Before throwing things away, people often put them in a box and place them by the street. It means you can take it, it has been abandoned. Although if nobody takes it, you have to un-abandon it and throw it away, or else it is littering. In any case, people put TVs, stereos, food, all sorts of things. If it is left 5 feet away, on the private side of the sidewalk, nobody touches it. Well, if it was a bike it would get stolen, but if it was a TV nobody would touch it. (TVs don't have solid resale value these days)
Unlocked bikes abandoned in public are not a clearcut "don't touch it" situation, especially if there are lots of them and they all have a logo of a local business on them. Keeping it, or selling it, might be theft, but riding it around and abandoning it in a similar situation as you found it might be totally legal. Obviously it will vary by jurisdiction, but it is going to be a matter of splitting hairs for the judge almost anywhere.
In this case, the bikes are not actually restricted to use only by Google employees, so it is clearly legal to ride them around. And if it wasn't legal to ride them, then it wouldn't be legal to abandon them in public bike racks, either! Once the owner's policy is to abandon them in public for later use, it really pushes the hairsplitting towards allowing borrowing.
Mind your alpha-betters or they'll kick you out of the bubble city!
The idea that working bikes, assembled from "mismatched" (fitting!) parts, would have no value is absurd.
The base price for a non-working used bike is about $15 if complete. $20 if it basically works, but sucks. Take that same bike and just give it a full "tune up" where a bike mechanic cleans it up, oils everything, adjusts all the brakes and gears, now it is worth ~$100.
Go to a bike shop that sells used bikes and check! The "bottom end" is around $100 for a used bike in salable condition, and you have to go to a discount junk store to find anything cheaper. Thieves sell crappy bikes for $20-50, and they often give them a basic tune up first! It isn't a lot of money, but it is enough for some tweaker to get high, so they'll do it.
Statistics show both that there was more crime in the past, and also that the media spent less time reporting it.
Such that as the crime rate has gone down, public perception about the amount of crime has gone up. It turns out, public perception of crime closely tracks media reports of crime, rather than police reports of crime.
It may be that crime in his neighborhood went down, but the rate of neighbors complaining about it went up, because they were more exposed to crime reports in the media.
It sounds right, because compute is the key word. But is it *-ing something?! No, the air is not computing anything. Yes, it is doing things you could observe to compute something.
The exploit uses way more CPU than the system normally does. It fully loads the system down, in order to get enough state to make predictions. You have to first install the malware to your system, then let your system chew itself at 100%, and not notice, and then go ahead and authenticate using that system while it is obviously malfunctioning.
It is dangerous, but it is highly unlikely for millions of computers to have had authentication secrets exposed. And it is not something you can just hide quietly. It is not anything as dangerous as a USB keylogger, for example.
lol, no.
Also, you left out an important disclaimer: You are not a lawyer! lolololol
If something "goes wrong" with "your product," you're rarely responsible for anything other than the cost of the faulty product. But it would have to be totally faulty. If it blows up because of a manufacturing defect, there is liability. If a criminal misuses it and hurts you with it, there is generally not any liability for the manufacturer.
The tort system in the US is based on the English Common Law system, and it has nothing to do with products. It has to do with harm (torts) that were committed to you. It isn't enough to claim something was "wrong" with a product, and point a finger. You have to show you were harmed, and you have to show it was somebody's fault. "My game ran 5% slower, waaaaaaa" is not going to be seen to be a harm that was caused by anybody.
If you have 1000 computers with Intel processors, and you claim they've harmed you because your computer was 5% slower, you've got a really weak claim because if they had known about the problem, your computers would have simply been 5% slower sooner. So you weren't harmed by 5% of the price, or anything like that. I mean, probably they will blame the OS vendor, who will blame the user for not knowing about bugs or not reading the EULA which talks about bugs and liability. ;) And nevermind that the sale terms of the CPU probably prevent your claim. Just showing the harm caused by Intel is hard to do, and the attempt likely to be weak.
You can't really "bring a class action into court" in the first place. You have to bring a regular action, and then you request that the Judge make it into a class action for you. You can't just file a class action.
Ultimately, this only allows malware that the user accidentally gave permission to, to do stuff on the CPU, stuff that is actually up to the OS. You're going to have a hard time even showing you were harmed by Intel in that series of events.
The only case that appears like it would be strong would be to claim that Intel harmed you by promising faster speeds than they delivered, but it wasn't due to any gross incompetence. At worst routine incompetence, and the result is only a minor difference in speed. They might get in trouble for not reducing their speed claims after they knew about the problem, so maybe customers from a six month window would get a coupon as Intel's punishment. The lawyers would be most of the cost.
The security holes seem to be entirely the fault of the operating system, which is who is responsible for deciding what code is allowed to run. And even then, none of the malware is likely to come from the OS vendor; the user isn't at fault, but it is the criminals that wrote and delivered the malware who are primarily at fault for any damage done to the user.
You either didn't read Apple's statement before linking it, or you didn't understand it.
What it actually says is that Apple's ARM designs are all vulnerable to [Meltdown or Spectre]. So you got the most important part muddled.
Dude, linux is Free Software, that means you don't have to care what the neckbeards say when you use it. The people choosing to use linux servers are not the ones writing the linux kernel, or the ones evangelizing it. When an executive decides to save a bunch of money on their datacenter hardware by using linux as their OS, they do not phone up Saint Ignucius to ask if they're doing it right, and they certainly don't check to see if Linus has any relevant rants.
If Linus' rants were that influential, linux would have high quality print dialogs by now! Or, by a decade ago!