5 ms·

If I sell you a lock, and then 10 years later someone finds a vulnerability with the lock I sold you, should I refund you? That seems absurd. You are basically

by umvi 7y ago

If I sell you a lock, and then 10 years later someone finds a vulnerability with the lock I sold you, should I refund you? That seems absurd. You are basically saying the product has to be perfect and the architects have to be able to see the future. Even if your hardware is formally verified, people can do physical attacks like listening to high frequency chirps of your cpu and using that to break security. Do you still deserve a refund? There is no such thing as perfect security. It is a cat and mouse game that will continue until the end of time, requiring ever greater resources. Therefore... all software and hardware should be free because all software and hardware is defective?

floatingatoll 7y ago
Locks often offer a lifetime warranty against manufacturing defects in their locks. Is this a manufacturing defect in CPUs? (The defect is baked into hard silicon out in the world, so the analogy is plausible.)
- dymk 7y ago
  It’s not a defect, so the analogy doesn’t work
  - vorpalhex 7y ago
    How is hyperthreading being insecure not a defect?
    - dymk 7y ago
      A new technique to pick locks is discovered. Does that mean all locks are defective?
      - vorpalhex 7y ago
        When the Kaba Simplex (a commercial door lock) was discovered to be easily bypassed by holding a magnet near it, yes, it was in fact a design defect and the company had to correct it by giving repair kits out to purchasers.
        dymk 7y ago
        Intel and others did give out a repair kit; they give you the option of disabling hyperthreading and a whole host of other optimizations. Those optimizations are both what provides this new side-channel of attack, and an immense speedup when they're enabled. You can't have one without the other.
        vorpalhex 7y ago
        Except they didn't advertise that way. They advertised the hyperthreaded performance, without disclosing its security implications.
        dymk 7y ago
        You're asking for something impossible. Lock manufacturers can't advertise that their locks are hardened against specific yet-to-be-discovered attacks. Intel can't advertise that their CPUs are hardened against specific yet-to-be-discovered attacks. They can only provide mitigations after the fact.
        Forbo 7y ago
        Yet they are still advertising the number of threads without any mention of the vulnerabilities involved, well after those vulnerabilities have been disclosed. It's deceptive advertising at best.
        andoriyu 7y ago
        Except lock buyers still go the door lock and in case of intel you lost threads.
- toast0 7y ago
  This is a design defect, not a manufacturing defect. In case of design defects in highly regulated fields (cars), there is often a campaign to make things right. When Intel processors couldn't divide properly, they had a campaign to replace them. In this case, it looks like we're not getting much.
cies 7y ago
Indeed its the difference between lying and making a mistake. Off course they hoped with, plausible deniability, to mask those lies as mistakes: but they got caught. Hence the class action suits.
- 3JPLW 7y ago
  Have there been any rumors of internal discovery at Intel prior to any of these disclosures?
  - dymk 7y ago
    No.
ajsnigrutin 7y ago
10 years? Of course not. But if i bought it yesterday, I'd expect a refund. Just consider that they were still selling affected CPUs even when they knew about the vulnerabilities and even after the papers were published.
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  They are still selling them today.
- umvi 7y ago
  > Of course not. But if i bought it yesterday, I'd expect a refund. If you bought it yesterday, why wouldn't you be able to get a refund? I don't know of any major vendor that would deny you a refund on grounds that the unit is defective.
  - ajsnigrutin 7y ago
    I know of no mass refunds (as it was with volkswagen) due to spectre/meltdown, and slowing your pc down by 30% after the first patch, and as it seems losing hyperthreading seems like a defective unit to me.
    - stickfigure 7y ago
      Have you asked the vendor that sold you your PC for a refund? I don't know if it would work, but that's the avenue you would have to take - including sending your PC back. Then what are you going to buy? Another PC with the same issue?
derpherpsson 7y ago
Its not like that. Intel took shortcuts to make their CPUs faster. At least some of the chip architects working on their implementation of hyperthreading should have understood that they sacrificed security for speed - without telling anyone.
- rrss 7y ago
  > should have understood that they sacrificed security for speed And what if they didn't? It's pretty much exactly like that. Intel has been making CPUs for well over a decade that are vulnerable to various side channel attacks, and the only thing that has changed is the community's understanding of the vulnerabilities (i.e. there's a new way to pick the lock).
  - wahern 7y ago
    It strains credulity to believe that Intel wasn't aware that they were trading side-channel resistance for performance. The problems are just too deep and pervasive. None of AMD, ARM, Power, or SPARC came close to the number and severity of issues in Intel chips. There were problems in those chips, but their nature and limited scope shows that everybody had a rough idea about how far they could go before they made privilege separation worthless from a confidentiality perspective. Yes, some went a little too far, but it seems clear that Intel just said, "f-it", and stood on the gas pedal. Hyperthreading/SMT is a trickier issue because it had obvious and even proven side-channel potential from the beginning. But 1) everybody had to hold their nose in order to compete with Intel on SMT performance, and 2) technically the operating system communities should have made the effort to keep unrelated processes from sharing an SMT'd core. And that still needs to happen--we need smarter schedulers.
    - rrss 7y ago
      > It strains credulity I don't agree. Meltdown: Intel, IBM, some ARM Spectre v1: Intel, ARM, IBM Spectre v2: Intel, ARM, IBM, AMD Spectre v3a: Intel, ARM Spectre v4: Intel, ARM, IBM, AMD L1TF: Intel, IBM Meltdown-PK: Intel Spectre-PHT: Intel, ARM, AMD Meltdown-BND: Intel, AMD MDS: Intel RIDL: Intel That doesn't look to me like "everybody had a rough idea about how far they could go." It is really easy for me to believe that a ton of designers could add optimizations without consideration of side channels. Nobody appreciated the vulnerabilities that speculation introduced. (And keep in mind Intel has probably 90+% market share in the search for exploitable behavior.) > The problems are just too deep and pervasive One could also say that it strains credulity that the entire community failed to realize the existence of these vulnerabilities that are so fundamental to speculation, and yet here we are - that's exactly what happened.
3JPLW 7y ago
Downvoted for the straw man — Intel is currently selling processors with, e.g., 8 cores and 16 threads without any asterisks or caveats. That's in their official marketing materials. Currently. https://a.sellpoint.net/a/Qo3wL1no.jpg https://a.sellpoint.net/a/Qo3wL1no.jpg (via NewEgg) https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/processors/core/i9-processors.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/processors/...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rrss 7y ago
  And it's true... Has Intel ever said "we guarantee that hyperthreads are entirely isolated from one another?"
  - 3JPLW 7y ago
    One quick google later: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/hyper-threading/hyper-threading-technology.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-tec... > By combining one of these Intel® processors and chipsets with an operating system and BIOS supporting Intel® HT Technology, you can: > * Run demanding applications simultaneously while maintaining system responsiveness > * Keep systems protected, efficient, and manageable while minimizing impact on productivity
    - rrss 7y ago
      I have no idea what "keep systems protected" means (and probably neither did the person who wrote that). That statement is a long way from an actual guarantee that there is no way for one logical thread to extract information about another.
  - andoriyu 7y ago
    All car makers put asterisk when talk about performance and mileage - it didn't help VW from being fined and prosecuted. We were given certain benchmark numbers and performance target and it all went to shit with a single microcode update. Somehow most people expect CPU not to give random javascript in the Internets a private key from encrypted file system. Intel got off so easy from that drama. Imagine a car marker selling you a car 4 seats, but when backseats are used you might lose steering? Would that be okay? No where it says you get 4 usable seats.
gamache 7y ago
> If I sell you a lock, and then 10 years later someone finds a vulnerability with the lock I sold you, should I refund you? Kryptonite did exactly this when someone figured out they could open their U-locks with a Bic pen barrel. Full recall of vulnerable products, with free replacement, regardless of age.

by umvi 7y ago

floatingatoll 7y ago

Locks often offer a lifetime warranty against manufacturing defects in their locks. Is this a manufacturing defect in CPUs? (The defect is baked into hard silicon out in the world, so the analogy is plausible.)

dymk 7y ago
It’s not a defect, so the analogy doesn’t work
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  How is hyperthreading being insecure not a defect?
  - dymk 7y ago
    A new technique to pick locks is discovered. Does that mean all locks are defective?
    - vorpalhex 7y ago
      When the Kaba Simplex (a commercial door lock) was discovered to be easily bypassed by holding a magnet near it, yes, it was in fact a design defect and the company had to correct it by giving repair kits out to purchasers.
      - dymk 7y ago
        Intel and others did give out a repair kit; they give you the option of disabling hyperthreading and a whole host of other optimizations. Those optimizations are both what provides this new side-channel of attack, and an immense speedup when they're enabled. You can't have one without the other.
        vorpalhex 7y ago
        Except they didn't advertise that way. They advertised the hyperthreaded performance, without disclosing its security implications.
        dymk 7y ago
        You're asking for something impossible. Lock manufacturers can't advertise that their locks are hardened against specific yet-to-be-discovered attacks. Intel can't advertise that their CPUs are hardened against specific yet-to-be-discovered attacks. They can only provide mitigations after the fact.
        Forbo 7y ago
        Yet they are still advertising the number of threads without any mention of the vulnerabilities involved, well after those vulnerabilities have been disclosed. It's deceptive advertising at best.
        andoriyu 7y ago
        Except lock buyers still go the door lock and in case of intel you lost threads.
toast0 7y ago
This is a design defect, not a manufacturing defect. In case of design defects in highly regulated fields (cars), there is often a campaign to make things right. When Intel processors couldn't divide properly, they had a campaign to replace them. In this case, it looks like we're not getting much.

cies 7y ago

Indeed its the difference between lying and making a mistake. Off course they hoped with, plausible deniability, to mask those lies as mistakes: but they got caught. Hence the class action suits.

3JPLW 7y ago
Have there been any rumors of internal discovery at Intel prior to any of these disclosures?
- dymk 7y ago
  No.

ajsnigrutin 7y ago

10 years? Of course not. But if i bought it yesterday, I'd expect a refund. Just consider that they were still selling affected CPUs even when they knew about the vulnerabilities and even after the papers were published.

throwaway2048 7y ago
They are still selling them today.
umvi 7y ago
> Of course not. But if i bought it yesterday, I'd expect a refund. If you bought it yesterday, why wouldn't you be able to get a refund? I don't know of any major vendor that would deny you a refund on grounds that the unit is defective.
- ajsnigrutin 7y ago
  I know of no mass refunds (as it was with volkswagen) due to spectre/meltdown, and slowing your pc down by 30% after the first patch, and as it seems losing hyperthreading seems like a defective unit to me.
  - stickfigure 7y ago
    Have you asked the vendor that sold you your PC for a refund? I don't know if it would work, but that's the avenue you would have to take - including sending your PC back. Then what are you going to buy? Another PC with the same issue?

derpherpsson 7y ago

Its not like that. Intel took shortcuts to make their CPUs faster. At least some of the chip architects working on their implementation of hyperthreading should have understood that they sacrificed security for speed - without telling anyone.

rrss 7y ago
> should have understood that they sacrificed security for speed And what if they didn't? It's pretty much exactly like that. Intel has been making CPUs for well over a decade that are vulnerable to various side channel attacks, and the only thing that has changed is the community's understanding of the vulnerabilities (i.e. there's a new way to pick the lock).
- wahern 7y ago
  It strains credulity to believe that Intel wasn't aware that they were trading side-channel resistance for performance. The problems are just too deep and pervasive. None of AMD, ARM, Power, or SPARC came close to the number and severity of issues in Intel chips. There were problems in those chips, but their nature and limited scope shows that everybody had a rough idea about how far they could go before they made privilege separation worthless from a confidentiality perspective. Yes, some went a little too far, but it seems clear that Intel just said, "f-it", and stood on the gas pedal. Hyperthreading/SMT is a trickier issue because it had obvious and even proven side-channel potential from the beginning. But 1) everybody had to hold their nose in order to compete with Intel on SMT performance, and 2) technically the operating system communities should have made the effort to keep unrelated processes from sharing an SMT'd core. And that still needs to happen--we need smarter schedulers.
  - rrss 7y ago
    > It strains credulity I don't agree. Meltdown: Intel, IBM, some ARM Spectre v1: Intel, ARM, IBM Spectre v2: Intel, ARM, IBM, AMD Spectre v3a: Intel, ARM Spectre v4: Intel, ARM, IBM, AMD L1TF: Intel, IBM Meltdown-PK: Intel Spectre-PHT: Intel, ARM, AMD Meltdown-BND: Intel, AMD MDS: Intel RIDL: Intel That doesn't look to me like "everybody had a rough idea about how far they could go." It is really easy for me to believe that a ton of designers could add optimizations without consideration of side channels. Nobody appreciated the vulnerabilities that speculation introduced. (And keep in mind Intel has probably 90+% market share in the search for exploitable behavior.) > The problems are just too deep and pervasive One could also say that it strains credulity that the entire community failed to realize the existence of these vulnerabilities that are so fundamental to speculation, and yet here we are - that's exactly what happened.

3JPLW 7y ago

Downvoted for the straw man — Intel is currently selling processors with, e.g., 8 cores and 16 threads without any asterisks or caveats. That's in their official marketing materials. Currently. https://a.sellpoint.net/a/Qo3wL1no.jpg https://a.sellpoint.net/a/Qo3wL1no.jpg (via NewEgg) https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/processors/core/i9-processors.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/processors/...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rrss 7y ago
And it's true... Has Intel ever said "we guarantee that hyperthreads are entirely isolated from one another?"
- 3JPLW 7y ago
  One quick google later: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/hyper-threading/hyper-threading-technology.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-tec... > By combining one of these Intel® processors and chipsets with an operating system and BIOS supporting Intel® HT Technology, you can: > * Run demanding applications simultaneously while maintaining system responsiveness > * Keep systems protected, efficient, and manageable while minimizing impact on productivity
  - rrss 7y ago
    I have no idea what "keep systems protected" means (and probably neither did the person who wrote that). That statement is a long way from an actual guarantee that there is no way for one logical thread to extract information about another.
- andoriyu 7y ago
  All car makers put asterisk when talk about performance and mileage - it didn't help VW from being fined and prosecuted. We were given certain benchmark numbers and performance target and it all went to shit with a single microcode update. Somehow most people expect CPU not to give random javascript in the Internets a private key from encrypted file system. Intel got off so easy from that drama. Imagine a car marker selling you a car 4 seats, but when backseats are used you might lose steering? Would that be okay? No where it says you get 4 usable seats.

gamache 7y ago

> If I sell you a lock, and then 10 years later someone finds a vulnerability with the lock I sold you, should I refund you? Kryptonite did exactly this when someone figured out they could open their U-locks with a Bic pen barrel. Full recall of vulnerable products, with free replacement, regardless of age.