> AFAICT, de Raadt was concerned about Intel in general, but not the recent exploits in particular. Really? How do you explain the following: > These process

> AFAICT, de Raadt was concerned about Intel in general, but not the recent exploits in particular. Really? How do you explain the following: > These processors are buggy as hell, and some of these bugs don't just cause development/debugging problems, but will ASSUREDLY be exploitable from userland code. > Note that some errata like AI65, AI79, AI43, AI39, AI90, AI99 scare the hell out of us. > AI90 is exploitable on some operating systems (but not OpenBSD running default binaries). Plus huge development effort in stack/address randomization, W^X pages, dynamic kernel and c library relinking, etc as simply 'concern about intel in general' but not any details 'in particular'? Even if the stated position is not true, it would be logically inconsistent to assume someone whose operating system project focuses on 'security and correctness' to simply be making general statements and not being concerned with actual low-level details..