|
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"
|
![]() |
|
![]()
|
# ? May 28, 2024 08:08 |
|
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
|
![]() |
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
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
|
![]() |
|
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
|
![]() |
|
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?
|
![]() |
|
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 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
|
![]() |
|
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 ahahahhaah if they can do insider trading like this, that fund that was shorting companies with 0days should be ok too.
|
![]() |
|
its not insider trading if you do the trades after your employees have posted the patch to the public mailing list
|
![]() |
|
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?
|
![]() |
|
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?
|
![]() |
|
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?
|
![]() |
|
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”.
|
![]() |
|
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.
|
![]() |
|
yeah rules are for the little people
|
![]() |
|
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
|
![]() |
|
Rufus Ping posted:2014 https://twitter.com/jamesliamcook/status/948111845382152192
|
![]() |
|
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 yeah im sure the chronically underfunded sec running under the largest grifter to ever live will get right on that
|
![]() |
|
Rufus Ping posted:2014 Thanks!
|
![]() |
|
that'll teach me to leave embedded tweets on at work
|
![]() |
|
lmao and he calls himself a technology correspondent. a shameful journalist.
|
![]() |
|
remember when james liam cook was milo
|
![]() |
|
eyes emoji
|
![]() |
|
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
|
![]() |
|
If it really turns out AMD processors aren't affected by the bug I might laugh until I die
|
![]() |
|
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:
pseudorandom name fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Jan 3, 2018 |
![]() |
|
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.) 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.
|
![]() |
|
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?
|
![]() |
|
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?
|
![]() |
|
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
|
![]() |
|
the 10b5-1 filings themselves aren’t public, perhaps obviously. all the other pieces are there though, you’re right
|
![]() |
|
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
|
![]() |
|
is there a yospos thread about the major intel fuckup ?
|
![]() |
|
Last Chance posted:is there a yospos thread about the major intel fuckup ? ![]()
|
![]() |
|
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/ idk much about security but someone sent me this
|
![]() |
|
Somehow one ended up on GBS
|
![]() |
|
Last Chance posted:https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/ would you like to know something about it or did you just want to talk about it with yr yosbros
|
![]() |
|
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)?
|
![]() |
|
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
|
![]() |
|
![]()
|
# ? May 28, 2024 08:08 |
|
CommunistPancake posted:i'm hearing a lot of desktop users yelling about the 30% DROP IN SPEED for their VIDEO-GAMES it’s entirely possible given the dark magic that nvidia/AMD have in their drivers
|
![]() |