4 ms·
People in this thread seem to be arguing past each other. Patrick is specifically disputing the claim (a few posts up) that you can always tell if the hardware
by rst 13y ago
People in this thread seem to be arguing past each other. Patrick is specifically disputing the claim (a few posts up) that you can always tell if the hardware is adding incorrectly. His argument is that if it's deliberately manufactured to add almost correctly, except in certain carefully tailored cicrumstances, the chance of that being detectable by a third party are pretty slim. The Ruby stuff is just a metaphor.
(Google for "Illinois Malicious Processors" for what an attacker might actually do. A few extra transistors here and there can lay you wide open.)
- acqq 13y agoI have referred to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug I still don't see how adding "almost incorrectly" would have not be detected in practice. In practice you also have to implement "almost incorrectly" in a way that doesn't affect the performance of your CPU. We are talking about processors, not Ruby interpreters.
- DanBC 13y agoThe Pentium FDIV bug was inadvertent and blatant, and was found because people were bound to notice the faulty output. You can't compare that kind of error to a deliberately hidden flaw. The possible flaws with Lenovo computers haven't, as far as I know, been found anyone other than the spooks. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6108980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6108980)
- acqq 13y agoThose flaws aren't "adding" bugs but remote access "features." Intel has also such technology in the new BIOSes and we ordinary users unfortunately can do less and less about it every time some new technology comes.