On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 12:31:16AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > We had some idea this class of problem was coming, through hints we > received from others and an extremely cynical perspective that has > developed. We believe Intel cpus do almost no security checks up-front, > but defer checks until instruction retire. As a result we believe > similar issues will be coming in the future. > > We asked repeatedly, but Intel provided no advance notice. We did not > even receive replies to our requests for dialogue.
HardenedBSD received no advanced notice, either. What's funny is that LWN, a Linux news outlet, might have: https://twitter.com/grsecurity/status/1029476228288454657 https://twitter.com/grsecurity/status/1029476820553539584 https://twitter.com/grsecurity/status/1029482062724648965 If true, a Linux news outlet, which carries no actual security responsibilities, received advanced notification, while certain operating systems vendors did not. But, again, this is just *speculation* at this point. ;) Thanks, -- Shawn Webb Cofounder and Security Engineer HardenedBSD Tor-ified Signal: +1 443-546-8752 Tor+XMPP+OTR: latt...@is.a.hacker.sx GPG Key ID: 0x6A84658F52456EEE GPG Key Fingerprint: 2ABA B6BD EF6A F486 BE89 3D9E 6A84 658F 5245 6EEE
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
