3 ms·
> As far as I'm aware, neither of these is known to have resulted in damage yet Damage as in malicious? No. Damage as in co's reporting higher instance usage o
by chrsstrm 9y ago
> As far as I'm aware, neither of these is known to have resulted in damage yet
Damage as in malicious? No. Damage as in co's reporting higher instance usage on cloud services after patching? Yes. Don't discount companies being angry about higher hosting costs and taking it out on Intel via a financial damages suit.
- mehrdadn 9y ago> Damage as in malicious? No. Damage as in co's reporting higher instance usage on cloud services after patching? Yes. Playing devil's advocate a bit here, but you could also think about it differently. This whole time, faster-but-more-insecure processors were providing everyone with cheaper prices than they would have had otherwise with more secure processors. I feel your notion of "damage" is far weaker than mine.
- freehunter 9y agoAsk Volkswagen how your argument worked for them.
- bobdole1234 9y agoThere's no law against processor bugs. Especially ones you fix when you're informed about them.
- chrsstrm 9y agoNo. No one would ever take the "sure we fucked up but be happy that you got a deal" argument seriously. Ask Intel's legal counsel if they're willing to go on record with that counterpoint.