5 ms·

I don't see how an open processor would any better than a closed one.

duncan_bayne 9y ago
In many of the same ways that open software is usually better than closed software. In particular, greater scrutiny of specifications and microcode ought to lead to better quality outcomes. This whole debate feels eerily similar to the emergence of open source software into the public eye, back in the 90s.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  > In particular, greater scrutiny of specifications and microcode ought to lead to better quality outcomes. Which given the CVE entries per day isn't necessarily true, in spite of pull requests being reviewed.
  - duncan_bayne 9y ago
    No - open source is a specific case of the general rule that there is no such thing as a silver bullet :) But it does make possible a bunch of superior workflows that are impossible with proprietary software, and makes certain types of failure common to propriety software much harder.
    - pjmlp 9y ago
      I am yet to see any open source project subjected to the same high quality workflows as commercial propriety software targeted for high integrity computing deployment. Could you provide an example?
      - duncan_bayne 9y ago
        Does this qualify? http://www.xtratum.org/files/xm_rtlw09.pdf http://www.xtratum.org/files/xm_rtlw09.pdf
        pjmlp 9y ago
        Thanks, kind of. It doesn't seem to have been deployed into production, though.
      - StreamBright 9y ago
        I am not sure when this mantra will stop that open source is safer when we know that it isn't.
        duncan_bayne 9y ago
        That's not what I said; please stop putting words in my mouth. Also, I hope you're not posting that from an Intel machine ;)
  - imtringued 9y ago
    Anecdote: open source software has the same rate of flaws as proprietary software but with proprietary software you're at the mercy of the vendor who might decide to not release or delay a patch. Opensource software in my experience usually gets patched quickly.
    - duncan_bayne 9y ago
      My anecdata agree with yours :) I remember switching from .NET to Ruby and being able to fix defects instead of submitting bug reports to Microsoft, and waiting _years_.
dragontamer 9y ago
Do we really know that AMD is immune to Meltdown aside from trusting them? I mean, I reasonably trust AMD here. I don't see any reason why they'd lie about it. Plus, everyone in AMD seems super-confident that they're immune to the Meltdown issue due to how they implement speculative cache loads. But such analysis is purely within AMD's circle of engineers. None of us outside of AMD can verify their claims.
- StreamBright 9y ago
  Do you really trust Airbus and Boeing with your life when you don't have all the blueprints of their planes?
  - dragontamer 9y ago
    Are you suggesting that we open up a government agency dedicated to the testing of CPU chips, and enforcing strict regulations? The FAA and its set of safety regulations are written into US law. That's why airplanes are trustworthy and safe: more safe than other countries on the average. https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/ https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/ https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/amt_airframe_handbook/ https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/a... Or do you think the US just MAGICALLY gets high safety results through sheer determination? There are systems in place, and I think it is reasonable to suggest that we should start building a system for computer-chip processors. Open Source is one possible proposal. I'm not sure what other proposals exist to ensure that the internals of chips aren't compromised.
    - StreamBright 9y ago
      I am suggesting that other engineering disciplines produce much safer products without opensource and open design. How it is achieved is another question. Bridges are not safe because of any government agency but because mechanical engineers design them to be safe.
      - dragontamer 9y ago
mickronome 9y ago
It could add a much needed impetus for the semiconductor industry to consider security perspectives in a much wider sense. Today we can't know or analyse the security properties of the silicon that essentially runs the entire world. We simply have to trust the producers, and they have been proven to be unreliable at best. They compete on performance and features, and the result is not that different from when there were no safety regulations (and testing) for cars, except that so far bad processor security haven't killed as many people as far as we know. Open IP is one way to help making sure the above stays true. There are certainly other avenues, but for security it seems to be the case that it's best handled in the open.
- StreamBright 9y ago
  If this is true how come that the spectre/meltdown discovery came from external vendors? Black box testing is essential in security and majority of the bugs found with fuzzers and other black box methods. Just because you have visibility into a product it does not mean that you are going to spot the bugs even less, you won't be able to identify security related bugs. Just to give you a really simple example, flying is one of the safest activities for humans yet all of the airplane producers have "closed" development models. It just proves that safety has nothing to do with open or closed development methods. Another angle, do you have documentation of any bridge you use? I don't think so. Yet, it is extremely safe to use bridges. I think people are trying echo the mantra that opensource is safer and testing is the only way to produce reliable products when we know for fact that other engineering disciplines do not use testing and open development, yet produce much safer to use products.

In many of the same ways that open software is usually better than closed software. In particular, greater scrutiny of specifications and microcode ought to lead to better quality outcomes. This whole debate feels eerily similar to the emergence of open source software into the public eye, back in the 90s.

pjmlp 9y ago
> In particular, greater scrutiny of specifications and microcode ought to lead to better quality outcomes. Which given the CVE entries per day isn't necessarily true, in spite of pull requests being reviewed.
- duncan_bayne 9y ago
  No - open source is a specific case of the general rule that there is no such thing as a silver bullet :) But it does make possible a bunch of superior workflows that are impossible with proprietary software, and makes certain types of failure common to propriety software much harder.
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    I am yet to see any open source project subjected to the same high quality workflows as commercial propriety software targeted for high integrity computing deployment. Could you provide an example?
    - duncan_bayne 9y ago
      Does this qualify? http://www.xtratum.org/files/xm_rtlw09.pdf http://www.xtratum.org/files/xm_rtlw09.pdf
      - pjmlp 9y ago
        Thanks, kind of. It doesn't seem to have been deployed into production, though.
    - StreamBright 9y ago
      I am not sure when this mantra will stop that open source is safer when we know that it isn't.
      - duncan_bayne 9y ago
        That's not what I said; please stop putting words in my mouth. Also, I hope you're not posting that from an Intel machine ;)
- imtringued 9y ago
  Anecdote: open source software has the same rate of flaws as proprietary software but with proprietary software you're at the mercy of the vendor who might decide to not release or delay a patch. Opensource software in my experience usually gets patched quickly.
  - duncan_bayne 9y ago
    My anecdata agree with yours :) I remember switching from .NET to Ruby and being able to fix defects instead of submitting bug reports to Microsoft, and waiting _years_.

dragontamer 9y ago

Do we really know that AMD is immune to Meltdown aside from trusting them? I mean, I reasonably trust AMD here. I don't see any reason why they'd lie about it. Plus, everyone in AMD seems super-confident that they're immune to the Meltdown issue due to how they implement speculative cache loads. But such analysis is purely within AMD's circle of engineers. None of us outside of AMD can verify their claims.

StreamBright 9y ago
Do you really trust Airbus and Boeing with your life when you don't have all the blueprints of their planes?
- dragontamer 9y ago
  Are you suggesting that we open up a government agency dedicated to the testing of CPU chips, and enforcing strict regulations? The FAA and its set of safety regulations are written into US law. That's why airplanes are trustworthy and safe: more safe than other countries on the average. https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/ https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/ https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/amt_airframe_handbook/ https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/a... Or do you think the US just MAGICALLY gets high safety results through sheer determination? There are systems in place, and I think it is reasonable to suggest that we should start building a system for computer-chip processors. Open Source is one possible proposal. I'm not sure what other proposals exist to ensure that the internals of chips aren't compromised.
  - StreamBright 9y ago
    I am suggesting that other engineering disciplines produce much safer products without opensource and open design. How it is achieved is another question. Bridges are not safe because of any government agency but because mechanical engineers design them to be safe.
    - dragontamer 9y ago

mickronome 9y ago

It could add a much needed impetus for the semiconductor industry to consider security perspectives in a much wider sense. Today we can't know or analyse the security properties of the silicon that essentially runs the entire world. We simply have to trust the producers, and they have been proven to be unreliable at best. They compete on performance and features, and the result is not that different from when there were no safety regulations (and testing) for cars, except that so far bad processor security haven't killed as many people as far as we know. Open IP is one way to help making sure the above stays true. There are certainly other avenues, but for security it seems to be the case that it's best handled in the open.

StreamBright 9y ago
If this is true how come that the spectre/meltdown discovery came from external vendors? Black box testing is essential in security and majority of the bugs found with fuzzers and other black box methods. Just because you have visibility into a product it does not mean that you are going to spot the bugs even less, you won't be able to identify security related bugs. Just to give you a really simple example, flying is one of the safest activities for humans yet all of the airplane producers have "closed" development models. It just proves that safety has nothing to do with open or closed development methods. Another angle, do you have documentation of any bridge you use? I don't think so. Yet, it is extremely safe to use bridges. I think people are trying echo the mantra that opensource is safer and testing is the only way to produce reliable products when we know for fact that other engineering disciplines do not use testing and open development, yet produce much safer to use products.