Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 30th Jun 2007 17:19 UTC, submitted by doro
Intel "Buried deep in a pile of slashdot comments, Matthew Dillon of DragonFly gives a detailed assessment of the Intel Core bugs. While a lot of news sites and bloggers were quick to dismiss the issue as inflated, Dillon's comments provide a much closer look at the actual issues."
Thread beginning with comment 252057
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Some inaccuracies..
by kaiwai on Sun 1st Jul 2007 00:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Some inaccuracies.."
Member since:

If people like Theo de Raadt and Matthew Dillon tell me such things, I believe them. Okay Theo makes some noise, but in the end, there are two people working at superior operating systems and they have lot of experience with such things. Over and out ...

I think it depends on how you define what as 'issues' - I've had a look at Theo's reply, Matt's, and Linus.

Theo and Matt see it as very important because of this; programmers aren't perfect, one (or more) stupid coding mistakes *could* expose their software to these flaws. On very large projects like Windows, *BSD, Linux and so forth, it could be of a major concern.

The issue is whether one should class something as critical if the exploit can be the result of poor programming on the developers part - Theo and Matt maintain it elevates it, Linus and others say that it is up to the programmer to ensure that their software is written correctly.

For me, its important for both sides to be made available; that it isn't just an accross the board vulnerability. Its up to software companies to keep abreast of erratas relating to CPU's and more importantly, ensuring that they keep to best programming practices.

Reply Parent Score: 5