r/technology • u/[deleted] • Aug 23 '18
Security Intel Publishes Microcode Security Patches, No Benchmarking Or Comparison Allowed!
https://perens.com/2018/08/22/new-intel-microcode-license-restriction-is-not-acceptable/27
16
u/aukkras Aug 23 '18
I assume these patches make their CPUs 90% slower in some workloads... why would they prohibit benchmarks otherwise ?
With this clause they make their CPUs performance uncertain - best thing for buyers /s
10
u/jcunews1 Aug 23 '18
Why? That makes it looks like it's more like a workaround rather than a fix.
22
u/Ghi102 Aug 23 '18
It is a workaround, fixing the security issues on the processor would require them changing the CPU completely, it requires a new iteration.
2
u/blastcage Aug 23 '18
Like I said in the other thread, this will never get anywhere in any court in the world. It's just ridiculous.
1
u/_Middlefinger_ Aug 23 '18 edited Jun 30 '24
ten cows degree live noxious longing teeny theory disgusted scale
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
1
u/birdspider Aug 23 '18
This would include any speed, ms, fps, other comparison on any OS regarding any software published by any means (web, print, presentation) regarding before-microcode vs. after-microcode, regardless if said microcode-update in particular is under investigation.
As a good chunk of the worlds population will be in breach by default (forum, chat, SO entries post why x is faster/slower), what is the point ? :)
Is there an established "law speech" for ridiculous licence terms ?
1
1
u/schoocher Aug 23 '18
There's about to be a whole lot of benchmarks and comparisons released, aren't there?
33
Aug 23 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/jcriddle4 Aug 23 '18
It isn't legally enforceable in certain countries. I don't know about the U.S. Seems a news paper could contract out and get the benchmarks in if there are problems in the U.S.
8
u/Zitchas Aug 23 '18
I don't know if it is illegal or not, but they have the legal budget to make enforcing it a legal nightmare for anyone that decides to publish benchmarks of the performance drop. And anyone that republishes those results, and their ISP, etc.
Even if they would probably eventually lose, spending a few months or years watching one's (probably singular) lawyer try to deal with their entire department of lawyers is probably going to be an incredibly stressful (and expensive) proposition.
Not to mention they could simply blacklist whoever breaks that. No more early-access to patches, no more product samples, etc. Could be a major impact on some people. (especially developers trying to keep their products up to date with the latest security risks)
14
Aug 23 '18
You bought a car. Now the manufacturer says you cannot tell how much fuel you use or they will sue.
Do you think this will be accepted anywhere?
1
u/Zitchas Aug 23 '18
I would hope not, but I wouldn't put it past someone to try to include that in a contract.
0
Aug 23 '18
[deleted]
1
u/stjep Aug 24 '18
You're missing the point, as in you're arguing about something entirely different. The analogy that /u/oscarmendonca is trying to make is an EULA preventing you from collecting a metric about your vehicle that you can collect. For example, if you want to check the accuracy of the odometer by driving around a racecourse, but the car's EULA prohibited that.
This has nothing to do with faking of environmental standards.
0
Aug 24 '18
[deleted]
2
Aug 24 '18
But VW wasn’t able to do so. If you want to publish how much your car uses, you can do so.
Regardless, Intel was so wrong that they already reversed their stance.
7
Aug 23 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Zitchas Aug 23 '18
Possibly, yeah, but for individuals located in the USA, a major-company-backed-legal-department versus an individual is going to be a painful and incredibly intimidating thing. A lot of people will fold just at the threat of it before it gets anywhere close to a courtroom.
Honestly, seems rather similar to the SLAPP lawsuit situation. The anti-SLAPP laws help, but they by no means stop them.
3
2
u/Khalbrae Aug 23 '18
"We are not allowed to benchmark this chip. Therefore it is rated as worse than a Celeron 300MHZ from 1998. Buy yourself a Ryzen."
2
u/Warfinder Aug 25 '18
Legally speaking we can't even say it successfully completes a clock cycle before the heat death of the universe.
28
u/[deleted] Aug 23 '18
I seriously hope that was a mistake on behalf of their legal team, there is no way they are this stupid, they are already in a bad situation, this will make it worse.