4 ms·

> Reviewing the timeline, isn't it more convincing that Google tried to protect themselves first, rather than Intel? It is true that both would suffer from dis

> Reviewing the timeline, isn't it more convincing that Google tried to protect themselves first, rather than Intel? It is true that both would suffer from disclosure. > why did they announce these exploits Because they got outed and so they had to develop a cover story. > It does not add up. Many parts of the story do not add up, probably because the parties involved are lying.

tristanj 9y ago
> Because they got outed and so they had to develop a cover story. Your claim is at odds with Google's explanation of why they announced the exploits prior to the coordinated disclosure date. In their press article, they state: We are posting before an originally coordinated disclosure date of January 9, 2018 because of existing public reports and growing speculation in the press and security research community about the issue, which raises the risk of exploitation. The full Project Zero report is forthcoming (update: this has been published; see above). Recall Google's announcement came the day after multiple reports speculating the existence of a CPU hardware bug. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16046636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16046636 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16052451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16052451 . Google's statement on why they announced before the coordinated disclosure date is valid. There was an unprecedented amount of embargo violations prior to the coordinated disclosure date. There were multiple high-profile reports correctly speculating the nature of the vulnerabilities. Where is your evidence this is a 'cover story'? I can't see it. > probably because the parties involved are lying. It is trivial to accuse someone of lying. Specifically, what did Google lie about, and where did they lie about it? Most importantly, where is your evidence that Google is lying?

tristanj 9y ago

> Because they got outed and so they had to develop a cover story. Your claim is at odds with Google's explanation of why they announced the exploits prior to the coordinated disclosure date. In their press article, they state: We are posting before an originally coordinated disclosure date of January 9, 2018 because of existing public reports and growing speculation in the press and security research community about the issue, which raises the risk of exploitation. The full Project Zero report is forthcoming (update: this has been published; see above). Recall Google's announcement came the day after multiple reports speculating the existence of a CPU hardware bug. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16046636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16046636 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16052451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16052451 . Google's statement on why they announced before the coordinated disclosure date is valid. There was an unprecedented amount of embargo violations prior to the coordinated disclosure date. There were multiple high-profile reports correctly speculating the nature of the vulnerabilities. Where is your evidence this is a 'cover story'? I can't see it. > probably because the parties involved are lying. It is trivial to accuse someone of lying. Specifically, what did Google lie about, and where did they lie about it? Most importantly, where is your evidence that Google is lying?