Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Farmdizzle
May 26, 2009

Hagel satan
Grimey Drawer

ate all the Oreos posted:

isn't that the one we've been talking about for like the last page or two? i can't tell because everyone seems to be addressing it in the abstract since it's embargoed so there's no real details

it is. i recognized the author using the phrase "I adore a little intrigue"

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

anthonypants
May 6, 2007

by Nyc_Tattoo
Dinosaur Gum

ate all the Oreos posted:

isn't that the one we've been talking about for like the last page or two? i can't tell because everyone seems to be addressing it in the abstract since it's embargoed so there's no real details
yes but that link they shared is a tumblr reblog of the original link, with no additional information

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

ate all the Oreos posted:

isn't that the one we've been talking about for like the last page or two? i can't tell because everyone seems to be addressing it in the abstract since it's embargoed so there's no real details

Its is, my mistake, this seems to be the original source at least.

Cybernetic Vermin
Apr 18, 2005

it is a pretty fun problem since it is reasonably easy to understand, but it is a bit of a marvel that someone thought of it

i have to wonder if we wont see a microcode patch at some point, thinking that intel should be able to hook into the point of the page fault and determine that it is specifically a supervisor page, and just flush caches in that reasonably rare event

e: then again, that may be too late if you carefully synchronize two threads for the purpose

pseudorandom name
May 6, 2007

presumably Intel would've done that if it were possible, because the alternative solution that they're developing now is so much worse

also, https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/12/19/intels-ceo-just-sold-a-lot-of-stock.aspx

univbee
Jun 3, 2004




Anyone remember which conference and year it was where someone here noted the conference was displaying pictures in tweets with a certain conference hashtag on the projector unfiltered, resulting in someone else goatse'ing the display? Was it at an RSA conference?

Cybernetic Vermin
Apr 18, 2005

pseudorandom name posted:

presumably Intel would've done that if it were possible, because the alternative solution that they're developing now is so much worse

also, https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/12/19/intels-ceo-just-sold-a-lot-of-stock.aspx

i'm not sure that the heavy-weight software solution is a sure sign there wont be a lighter microcode one in the future though, it sounds serious enough that they may be going for the sure thing (unmapping will after all certainly fix the issue) to take a bit more time validating a better one. but we'll see, rather unfortunate for everyone but amd (+6.57%) by the sounds of things, i can't trade in us stocks atm so not in a position to make use of the theory that it will be a permanent drag on current intel cpus ;q

Midjack
Dec 24, 2007



pseudorandom name posted:

presumably Intel would've done that if it were possible, because the alternative solution that they're developing now is so much worse

also, https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/12/19/intels-ceo-just-sold-a-lot-of-stock.aspx

ahahahhaah

if they can do insider trading like this, that fund that was shorting companies with 0days should be ok too.

pseudorandom name
May 6, 2007

its not insider trading if you do the trades after your employees have posted the patch to the public mailing list

anthonypants
May 6, 2007

by Nyc_Tattoo
Dinosaur Gum

univbee posted:

Anyone remember which conference and year it was where someone here noted the conference was displaying pictures in tweets with a certain conference hashtag on the projector unfiltered, resulting in someone else goatse'ing the display? Was it at an RSA conference?
that was our good friend rufo but i don't remember what year it was

Subjunctive
Sep 12, 2006

✨sparkle and shine✨

pseudorandom name posted:

its not insider trading if you do the trades after your employees have posted the patch to the public mailing list

I thought that material information had to be published where a preponderance of average investors would see it. otherwise you could stick it on some random web page and then trade before anyone saw it

I would be very surprised if publishing a patch constituted sufficient disclosure — do you think it’s consistent with the SEC on this?

Workaday Wizard
Oct 23, 2009

by Pragmatica
no one from equifax got hurt for selling stocks during a loving breach that they knew about and were investigating. why do you think they will touch intel's ceo?

Subjunctive
Sep 12, 2006

✨sparkle and shine✨

are you asking me? I don’t think there will be practical consequences. I just don’t think posting a patch is what closes it off. I’ve had material non-public information at public companies, and our guidance always had much higher bars to clear than “someone posted related code to someone else’s web site”.

Jabor
Jul 16, 2010

#1 Loser at SpaceChem
The difference is probably whether or not you're high-level enough that the company would back you up instead of throwing you under the bus.

Shame Boy
Mar 2, 2010

yeah rules are for the little people

Rufus Ping
Dec 27, 2006





I'm a Friend of Rodney Nano

anthonypants posted:

that was our good friend rufo but i don't remember what year it was

2014

https://twitter.com/hilare_belloc/status/438839253577908225

It was ChickenOfTomorrow who did all the legwork, i just sent the tweet

Bulgogi Hoagie
Jun 1, 2012

We

Rufus Ping posted:

2014

https://twitter.com/hilare_belloc/status/438839253577908225

It was ChickenOfTomorrow who did all the legwork, i just sent the tweet

https://twitter.com/jamesliamcook/status/948111845382152192

30 TO 50 FERAL HOG
Mar 2, 2005



Subjunctive posted:

I thought that material information had to be published where a preponderance of average investors would see it. otherwise you could stick it on some random web page and then trade before anyone saw it

I would be very surprised if publishing a patch constituted sufficient disclosure — do you think it’s consistent with the SEC on this?

yeah im sure the chronically underfunded sec running under the largest grifter to ever live will get right on that

univbee
Jun 3, 2004




Rufus Ping posted:

2014

It was ChickenOfTomorrow who did all the legwork, i just sent the tweet

Thanks!

Shame Boy
Mar 2, 2010

that'll teach me to leave embedded tweets on at work

Powerful Two-Hander
Mar 10, 2004

Mods please change my name to "Tooter Skeleton" TIA.



lmao and he calls himself a technology correspondent. a shameful journalist.

Rufus Ping
Dec 27, 2006





I'm a Friend of Rodney Nano
remember when james liam cook was milo wagner's yiannopoulos's lackey at failed tech blog The Kernel before dodging the world's largest bullet and reinventing himself as a proper journo

Rufus Ping
Dec 27, 2006





I'm a Friend of Rodney Nano
eyes emoji

Subjunctive
Sep 12, 2006

✨sparkle and shine✨

ate all the Oreos posted:

yeah rules are for the little people

the SEC form 4 says that the transaction was under a 10b5-1 pre-determined trading plan that was already filed. IIRC they have to be filed 6 months before they take effect, so going from the form 4 he specified the sale back in April. (likely to coincide with his option package vesting.)

all CxO/VPs I know trade under a 10b5-1 plan because they always have MNP information and otherwise couldn’t trade at all

Fabricated
Apr 9, 2007

Living the Dream
If it really turns out AMD processors aren't affected by the bug I might laugh until I die

pseudorandom name
May 6, 2007

Fabricated posted:

If it really turns out AMD processors aren't affected by the bug I might laugh until I die

That quote I posted earlier was from an AMD developer in the commit message for a patch that disables PTI on AMD CPUs because they're not affected.

here's the whole thing since nobody read the link the first time:
code:
From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Subject: [PATCH] x86/cpu, x86/pti: Do not enable PTI on AMD processors

AMD processors are not subject to the types of attacks that the kernel
page table isolation feature protects against.  The AMD microarchitecture
does not allow memory references, including speculative references, that
access higher privileged data when running in a lesser privileged mode
when that access would result in a page fault.

Disable page table isolation by default on AMD processors by not setting
the X86_BUG_CPU_INSECURE feature, which controls whether X86_FEATURE_PTI
is set.

Signed-off-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c |    4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
index c47de4e..7d9e3b0 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
@@ -923,8 +923,8 @@ static void __init early_identify_cpu(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
 
 	setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_ALWAYS);
 
-	/* Assume for now that ALL x86 CPUs are insecure */
-	setup_force_cpu_bug(X86_BUG_CPU_INSECURE);
+	if (c->x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_AMD)
+		setup_force_cpu_bug(X86_BUG_CPU_INSECURE);
 
 	fpu__init_system(c);

pseudorandom name fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Jan 3, 2018

ate shit on live tv
Feb 15, 2004

by Azathoth

Subjunctive posted:

the SEC form 4 says that the transaction was under a 10b5-1 pre-determined trading plan that was already filed. IIRC they have to be filed 6 months before they take effect, so going from the form 4 he specified the sale back in April. (likely to coincide with his option package vesting.)

all CxO/VPs I know trade under a 10b5-1 plan because they always have MNP information and otherwise couldn’t trade at all

Yea. I don't think this was necessarily insider trading. But in a non-poo poo world, it would certainly be something the SEC should investigate a bit. Since we are in a poo poo world where rules are only followed because it isn't inconvenient for the people the rules are meant for, I'm sure they will sign off on it without a second look.

You Am I
May 20, 2001

Me @ your poasting

I'm looking at moving my IT career towards an IT Security role. Not sure where in IT Security to start from or with, any recommendations? Is it worth becoming an auditor or is there some other part of IT Security that's worth looking into?

Subjunctive
Sep 12, 2006

✨sparkle and shine✨

ate poo poo on live tv posted:

But in a non-poo poo world, it would certainly be something the SEC should investigate a bit.

in April he told the SEC “I’m going to make this trade later this year”, and then it was on autopilot. he doesn’t get to change his mind. the optics are bad to people who think the CEO just logged into E-Trade to dump a few million in shares after getting an unpleasant email, but it’s super easy for the SEC to see whether the trade followed the 10b5-1 they have on file. I’m sure they did check when the form 4 came in, really, so I guess they did investigate a bit

I may be missing another angle though: what do you think they should do?

Cocoa Crispies
Jul 20, 2001

Vehicular Manslaughter!

Pillbug

ate poo poo on live tv posted:

Yea. I don't think this was necessarily insider trading. But in a non-poo poo world, it would certainly be something the SEC should investigate a bit. Since we are in a poo poo world where rules are only followed because it isn't inconvenient for the people the rules are meant for, I'm sure they will sign off on it without a second look.

it’s public data filed through the SEC, the presumption is that anyone (with time and inclination) can investigate, and as such it’s in companies' best interest to play fair: https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/accessing-edgar-data.htm

Subjunctive
Sep 12, 2006

✨sparkle and shine✨

the 10b5-1 filings themselves aren’t public, perhaps obviously. all the other pieces are there though, you’re right

Cocoa Crispies
Jul 20, 2001

Vehicular Manslaughter!

Pillbug

Subjunctive posted:

the 10b5-1 filings themselves aren’t public, perhaps obviously. all the other pieces are there though, you’re right

*bonghit* this is the perfect application for blockchain: make the hash of the filing public

Last Chance
Dec 31, 2004

is there a yospos thread about the major intel fuckup ?

Subjunctive
Sep 12, 2006

✨sparkle and shine✨

Last Chance posted:

is there a yospos thread about the major intel fuckup ?

:justpost:

Last Chance
Dec 31, 2004

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/

idk much about security but someone sent me this

MrMoo
Sep 14, 2000

Somehow one ended up on GBS

Shame Boy
Mar 2, 2010


would you like to know something about it or did you just want to talk about it with yr yosbros

aardvaard
Mar 4, 2013

you belong in the bog of eternal stench

i'm hearing a lot of desktop users yelling about the 30% DROP IN SPEED for their VIDEO-GAMES

to me this looks like an issue that really doesn't affect desktop users, right? only situations where someone should be allowed to execute code but not read certain portions of memory (like virtualization)?

Number19
May 14, 2003

HOCKEY OWNS
FUCK YEAH


Last Chance posted:

is there a yospos thread about the major intel fuckup ?

there is now i guess:

https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3845387

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008

CommunistPancake posted:

i'm hearing a lot of desktop users yelling about the 30% DROP IN SPEED for their VIDEO-GAMES

to me this looks like an issue that really doesn't affect desktop users, right? only situations where someone should be allowed to execute code but not read certain portions of memory (like virtualization)?

it’s entirely possible given the dark magic that nvidia/AMD have in their drivers

  • Locked thread