AMD downplays publicly disclosed security flaws, plans to release fixes in the coming...

[RaXoR]

What I'm really a fan of, is listening to a bunch of juvenile responses like, "I'm not a fanboy, you're a fanboy, so there"!

As for the rest of your post, (which I edited out), all that amounts to is, "AMD good, Intel bad". Which is, after all, exactly what I predicted would happen, after I made my first post to this thread.

And well, y'all stepped in it. .

Crying out about fanboyism isn't going to stop a thing. I'm not fanboying about anything, I was simply stating facts. Apparently you missed the point of my response and watered it down to "AMD good, Intel bad" when in reality my point was that not everyone who defends AMD and shits on Intel is a fanboy. Intel deserves the **** talk it gets from people due to their poor business practices.

Your response pretty much amounted to fanboyism by defending Intel. If you wanted to avoid such a discussion you would've refrained from defending them.

Checkmate

Steve let's not forget that prior to Coffee Lake coming out you were all about Ryzen. I like you and your videos, no sense in getting personal.

 

[captaincranky]

Crying out about fanboyism isn't going to stop a thing. I'm not fanboying about anything, I was simply stating facts. Apparently you missed the point of my response and watered it down to "AMD good, Intel bad" when in reality my point was that not everyone who defends AMD and shits on Intel is a fanboy. Intel deserves the **** talk it gets from people due to their poor business practices.

Wow somebody's really butt hurt, aren't they? There's an old saying, "the first sign of being crazy, is denying it". I've found that, "the first sign of being just about anything is denying it". So you saying, "I'm not a fanboy", falls on very skeptical ears..

But back to topic. Saying something akin to, "AMDs business practices are pure as the driven snow, and Intel's are the scum of the business world", kind of points toward extreme bias on the part of any poster. One might even pause to wonder, is that person a fanboy? Even the Magic Eight Ball", points to Si.....! So here again. pretty much all you've said is, "AMD morally good, Intel morally bad".

In any event, how about we take a break and discuss English lit? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much,_methinks William Shakespeare tackled this issue some 500 years ago.

Your response pretty much amounted to fanboyism by defending Intel. If you wanted to avoid such a discussion you would've refrained from defending them.

"You're (meaning me) an Intel fanboy, so there". Good response. Well thought out and precise.

In any case, Intel delaying the announcement of their vulnerabilities, (whatever their nefarious motives might have been), couldn't have possibly come at a better time for AMD, as it was after the release of their "Ryzen" line of CPUs . If Intel had announced Specter and Meltdown before AMD streeted their new CPUs, all they would have had to offer as alternative, would be garbage, with designs from years ago.

Speaking of interesting news, AMD is now in bed with Intel anyway, since, (I believe I read here), that Intel is going to incorporate AMD APUs into their new CPUs.

As far as all the fanboys here being totally dismissive of AMDs current vulnerabilities, hinging on the exception that, "you need administrative access to exploit them", is quite meaningless, unless every IT person in charge of a large scale Ryzen installation, is a Boy Scout, pure and true.

Now, as far as AMD being "more concerned about its customers than Intel", the motivation for that behavior, (and associated propaganda), went on between two car rental companies, Hertz and Avis, for years in full public view. Avis ads stated, "when you're only number two, you try harder". And so it goes with AMD,. They're certainly, winning the propaganda war here, among their, "rabidly enthusiastic followers".

Moving on, the first run of Ryzen has no on board graphics, yet the AMD crowd consistently compared prices with CPUs that do, Intel's. But then, that wouldn't matter to all the "enthusiasts" here, since they're all going to buy a GTX-1080 TI, at soon as those mean old coin miners stop buying them all up, and ruining all the gaming fun for a few select individuals, who after all, know full well the world revolves around them.

So, in a concession to the true realities of selling CPUs to more than a select group of very special people, AMD has included on die graphics in the new Ryzen offerings

Steve let's not forget that prior to Coffee Lake coming out you were all about Ryzen. I like you and your videos, no sense in getting personal.

AW, you're mad at Steve now too. I watched his Ryzen video, it was very enthusiastic toward the line. Are you saying he can't like Coffee Lake, and Ryzen at the same time? Because it sure sounds like that's what you're implying. Are you saying if he likes Coffee Lake CPUs, you'll stop watching his videos? Because you're sure putting out a strong subtext to that effect.

So, it snowed like heck here yesterday. Snowflakes were flying every which way. I'm disappointed to find out the storm's not over here at Techspot. (How's that for innuendo)?

 

[captaincranky]

It's a pity your original flamebait article was so irresponsibly researched and reported.

Yeah, if you could read the accreditation, you would see "Shawn Knight" as the sole author.
And as all the low post count noobs are constantly proclaiming, he's practically, "the king of click bait".

And yet they still read the articles. I wonder why? I have some theories. Perhaps it's so they'll have something to complain about. Perhaps it's to make their presence here felt. Perhaps, it's so we know that they can take their next 20 posts or so, and go make another site miserable with them. Who knows really..

I view them more in military terms, such as "cannon fodder".

But welcome to Techspot anyway.(y) (Glad you could make it ).

 

[Impudicus]

So an attacker who has already compromised the system is able to exploit with these flaws? Does this mean if your system has already been hacked by a hacker they could exploit some vulnerability?

 

[captaincranky]

So an attacker who has already compromised the system is able to exploit with these flaws? Does this mean if your system has already been hacked by a hacker they could exploit some vulnerability?

I guess it means that either a hacker, or a system administrator, could choose the exploit which is more in line with his or her objectives, whether that be an AMD vulnerability, or another generic attack.

Does that cleverly crafted answer, satisfy your cleverly crafted question?

 

[AMN3S1AC]

Yeah, if you could read the accreditation, you would see "Shawn Knight" as the sole author.
And as all the low post count noobs are constantly proclaiming, he's practically, "the king of click bait".

And yet they still read the articles. I wonder why? I have some theories. Perhaps it's so they'll have something to complain about. Perhaps it's to make their presence here felt. Perhaps, it's so we know that they can take their next 20 posts or so, and go make another site miserable with them. Who knows really..

I view them more in military terms, such as "cannon fodder".

But welcome to Techspot anyway.(y) (Glad you could make it ).

Not really. I respect the banner under which all the writers submit their work. In producing such a poorly researched initial article, it reflected badly upon the other contributors of this site, which normally produces excellent content. If post counts are all that matter to you, then feel free to disregard. I tend not to look at who writes the articles, instead enjoying the content, as I always felt that Techspot was a fair and reliable source of tech news and reviews.

 

[AMN3S1AC]

I never wrote an article about this bud.

I respectfully apologize if you took my use of "your" as directed at you personally, but instead, meant the fact that the site as a whole allowed such a poorly researched article to be published was very poor. The writer brought down the tone of the site, and detracted from the usually excellent reviews and articles published by the other writers.

 

[captaincranky]

Not really. I respect the banner under which all the writers submit their work. In producing such a poorly researched initial article, it reflected badly upon the other contributors of this site, which normally produces excellent content. If post counts are all that matter to you, then feel free to disregard. I tend not to look at who writes the articles, instead enjoying the content, as I always felt that Techspot was a fair and reliable source of tech news and reviews.

The writing staff here passes on the information they have been given. According to most of the opinion published by members subsequently, the article isn't the problem, but rather Intel's modus operandi is.

With that being said, every noob has one thing or another to say about Shawn's Journalistic intent. As I didn't see a title in the Techspot hierarchy for, article review critic, standards administrator, or anything remotely related to such a position, one has to believe that position would be, or rather is, considered superfluous.

But, you hafta admit, coming in off the web, and starting to throw around such strong negative opinion about one of the writer's ability, or lack thereof, is fairly obnoxious.

After all, how could anyone here have anticipated your arrival, and the rather expansive grasp of internet technical communication skills which you obviously possess?

So, stop reading Shawn's articles, and you'll have nothing to condescend to, or complain about. I'm sure there are other writers here that would slake your thirst for knowledge.

Another alternative would be to start your own technical website, and show this one how it really should be done.

But make no mistake about it, offensive is offensive, whether one is trying to be or not.

 

[AMN3S1AC]

I wasn't expecting fixes so quickly. It took Intel significantly longer but then again these aren't nearly as bad. I'm all for more security, even if these security flaws required admin access in the first place this will help protect users from themselves.

I'm still not a fan of how these were disclosed. The handling of these flaws by CTS was the worst I've ever seen.

The

The writing staff here passes on the information they have been given. According to most of the opinion published by members subsequently, the article isn't the problem, but rather Intel's modus operandi is.

With that being said, every noob has one thing or another to say about Shawn's Journalistic intent. As I didn't see a title in the Techspot hierarchy for, article review critic, standards administrator, or anything remotely related to such a position, one has to believe that position would be, or rather is, considered superfluous.

But, you hafta admit, coming in off the web, and starting to throw around such strong negative opinion about one of the writer's ability, or lack thereof, is fairly obnoxious.

After all, how could anyone here have anticipated your arrival, and the rather expansive grasp of internet technical communication skills which you obviously possess?

So, stop reading Shawn's articles, and you'll have nothing to condescend to, or complain about. I'm sure there are other writers here that would slake your thirst for knowledge.

Another alternative would be to start your own technical website, and show this one how it really should be done.

But make no mistake about it, offensive is offensive, whether one is trying to be or not.

You are correct, presenting a poorly researched article is offensive, both to his fellow writers, and the readers who frequent this site.

 

[captaincranky]

...[ ]....You are correct, presenting a poorly researched article is offensive, both to his fellow writers, and the readers who frequent this site.

Grow up. Trolls like you are a dime a dozen. You make 12 posts, and you think you can run the place. you're probably here because you were banned from the last sit you made a dozen posts.

 

[AMN3S1AC]

Grow up. Trolls like you are a dime a dozen. You make 12 posts, and you think you can run the place. you're probably here because you were banned from the last sit you made a dozen posts.

Not a troll, I have been an avid reader of this site for many years, but rarely feel the need to comment. Unfortunately, the original article was, by the writers own admission, poorly researched, and certain people cannot handle being called out on that. I took issue with the fact that the writer admitted the content and title needed amendment, but only after the lack of a credible source was pointed out by the commenters. More annoying, are those with high post counts, thinking they somehow transcend the site and are above all others, just because they feel the need to write down every little bit of nonsense that pops in their head. I didn't know this site had a "high posts club".

 

[captaincranky]

Not a troll, I have been an avid reader of this site for many years, but rarely feel the need to comment. Unfortunately, the original article was, by the writers own admission, poorly researched, and certain people cannot handle being called out on that. I took issue with the fact that the writer admitted the content and title needed amendment, but only after the lack of a credible source was pointed out by the commenters. More annoying, are those with high post counts, thinking they somehow transcend the site and are above all others, just because they feel the need to write down every little bit of nonsense that pops in their head. I didn't know this site had a "high posts club".

Oddly, I've had this discussion a few times prior to tonight. It seems members suddenly need to establish their validity by, "reading the site for years". In this case, you're trying to validate your viewpoint by suggesting you've read the "ads for years". It's an interesting little slither in an to attempt to establish credibility.

So, my suggestion continues to be, if Mr. Knights article's bother you to the point where you feel an obligation to campaign against them, observe a cooling off period by going back to quietly reading Techspot ads, and ignore Shawn's literary escapades.

I mean really, I've watched ads on TV for 6 decades, and I don't think I could be president of a major network. When you come right down to it, anybody who has successfully completed 5th grade English, can read most non technical advertising.

Now that you know his works are considered "click bait" by some of our newer members, hopefully you'll have the good taste, and good sense to avoid them.

After all, someone with your discerning taste, obvious expertise, ability, and talent's interests, (along with, ostensibly the site itself's interests in mind), would be better served by your participation in a discussion which meets your approval.

 

[AMN3S1AC]

Oddly, I've had this discussion a few times prior to tonight. It seems members suddenly need to establish their validity by, "reading the site for years". In this case, you're trying to validate your viewpoint by suggesting you've read the "ads for years". It's an interesting little slither in an to attempt to establish credibility.

So, my suggestion continues to be, if Mr. Knights article's bother you to the point where you feel an obligation to campaign against them, observe a cooling off period by going back to quietly reading Techspot ads, and ignore Shawn's literary escapades.

I mean really, I've watched ads on TV for 6 decades, and I don't think I could be president of a major network. When you come right down to it, anybody who has successfully completed 5th grade English, can read most non technical advertising.

Now that you know his works are considered "click bait" by some of our newer members, hopefully you'll have the good taste, and good sense to avoid them.

After all, someone with your discerning taste, obvious expertise, ability, and talent's interests, (along with, ostensibly the site itself's interests in mind), would be better served by your participation in a discussion which meets your approval.

Quite the opposite, as you were the first to mention post count as a judge of someones ability to form a valid opinion. As you fail to recognize, the writer in question actually admitted the flaws in his article, that many commenters pointed out, and amended the content and title. There is no campaign against the author of the article, I rarely even look at who is writing them, as normally the consistency is good.

 

[captaincranky]

Quite the opposite, as you were the first to mention post count as a judge of someones ability to form a valid opinion. As you fail to recognize, the writer in question actually admitted the flaws in his article, that many commenters pointed out, and amended the content and title. There is no campaign against the author of the article, I rarely even look at who is writing them, as normally the consistency is good.

If the article was already amended before you posted your complaint, then why are you still running on about it? You and the rest of many recent inductees to the forum, feel somehow manifestly obligated to "save the forum from shoddy journalism", most often in the form of Shawn's supposedly, "click bait", endeavors.

In your case, you actually started running your yap at Steve, who gave you a polite rebuke.

In point of fact, they actually do give "trophy points" for post count and loyalty to the site here at Techspot. So your argument against that being a factor is on somewhat shaky ground.

Not every article here, or anywhere else, is likely to drag down a Pulitzer Prize, get over it. And get over yourself while you're at it.

 

[AMN3S1AC]

If the article was already amended before you posted your complaint, then why are you still running on about it? You and the rest of many recent inductees to the forum, feel somehow manifestly obligated to "save the forum from shoddy journalism", most often in the form of Shawn's supposedly, "click bait", endeavors.

In your case, you actually started running your yap at Steve, who gave you a polite rebuke.

In point of fact, they actually do give "trophy points" for post count and loyalty to the site here at Techspot. So your argument against that being a factor is on somewhat shaky ground.

Not every article here, or anywhere else, is likely to drag down a Pulitzer Prize, get over it. And get over yourself while you're at it.

I'm not trying to save a forum, the article in question wasn't a forum post. I read the original article, and the amendment. If it was ok, then he would not have been advised by a fellow writer to change the headline. Yeah, quality, not quantity, if your post count is made up of fighting off any new person who dares to criticize, should be considered.

 

[captaincranky]

I'm not trying to save a forum, the article in question wasn't a forum post. I read the original article, and the amendment. If it was ok, then he would not have been advised by a fellow writer to change the headline. Yeah, quality, not quantity, if your post count is made up of fighting off any new person who dares to criticize, should be considered.

Your valor and persistence toward having the last word should also provide a shining example to us all as well.

 

[AMN3S1AC]

Your valor and persistence toward having the last word should also provide a shining example to us all as well.

When you cease making false assumptions regarding my intentions, lack of posts, bragging that you have awards for post counts...and fail to recognize that while the original article was lacking in credibility, it is only being sustained by your effort to justify the initial poor reporting of the facts. I mean, either accusation of wanting the last word could probably be thrown at either of us, since you have never failed to reply. Standards should always be expected, especially when you have the ability to influence potentially thousands of people.

 

[captaincranky]

When you cease making false assumptions regarding my intentions, lack of posts, bragging that you have awards for post counts...and fail to recognize that while the original article was lacking in credibility, it is only being sustained by your effort to justify the initial poor reporting of the facts. I mean, either accusation of wanting the last word could probably be thrown at either of us, since you have never failed to reply. Standards should always be expected, especially when you have the ability to influence potentially thousands of people.

Those of us who have been here for a while tend to take Shawn's titles and journalism with a grain, (if not more, of salt). Accordingly, all this garbage and indignation you're spraying around, is yesterday's news, and inconsequential.

You say, "you're not trying to save the site", but in the next breath, "you're protecting the entire internet from Shawn, and his perhaps, not well thought out articles". To me, that's just someone talking out both sides of his mouth.

Now, since the problem you have, appears to lay with Shawn Knight and not me,
please consider taking this issue up with the site's owner/operator, @Julio Franco.

That way, you won't have to deal with any personality issues between us. Post count won't matter, whether or not you read the ads, won't matter, and whether or not you've been lurking in the shadows for years, won't matter. All that will matter, is your disapproval of Shawn's publications. And after all, isn't that what you're claiming the entire issue is about?

Now run along noob, and go whimper to our host about your concerns..

 

[captaincranky]

@AMN3S1AC As far as my post count is concerned, let's just say I've been here long enough to witness a lengthy string of transient members march through here, listing all their personal demands as to what they feel they're entitled to, or demand from, Techspot, and that very obviously includes you.

Me, you ask? I'm just a contented old timer, happy with the information and entertainment our staff provides.

 

[AMN3S1AC]

Those of us who have been here for a while tend to take Shawn's titles and journalism with a grain, (if not more, of salt). Accordingly, all this garbage and indignation you're spraying around, is yesterday's news, and inconsequential.

You say, "you're not trying to save the site", but in the next breath, "you're protecting the entire internet from Shawn, and his perhaps, not well thought out articles". To me, that's just someone talking out both sides of his mouth.

Now, since the problem you have, appears to lay with Shawn Knight and not me,
please consider taking this issue up with the site's owner/operator, @Julio Franco.

That way, you won't have to deal with any personality issues between us. Post count won't matter, whether or not you read the ads, won't matter, and whether or not you've been lurking in the shadows for years, won't matter. All that will matter, is your disapproval of Shawn's publications. And after all, isn't that what you're claiming the entire issue is about?

Now run along noob, and go whimper to our host about your concerns..

"you're not trying to save the site" - Why the quotation marks, I never said that.
"you're protecting the entire internet from Shawn, and his perhaps, not well thought out articles" - Again, not something I said.

I made a comment, not directed at you. You chose to engage in this. I really feel the need to use words such as noob, really says a lot about how you perceive respect, as in, simply being argumentative for a great number of years over many different issues somehow justifies your opinion as being more important than others. It is a childish slur, usually reserved for the depths of online gaming where young kids can't control their emotions whilst interacting with others.

 

[AMN3S1AC]

@AMN3S1AC As far as my post count is concerned, let's just say I've been here long enough to witness a lengthy string of transient members march through here, listing all their personal demands as to what they feel they're entitled to, or demand from, Techspot, and that very obviously includes you.

Me, you ask? I'm just a contented old timer, happy with the information and entertainment our staff provides.

Contented old timer is definitely not the vibe you give off. Instead, it is that of a hostile forum member who thinks simply having a large post count somehow allows him to transcend the site. Perhaps Techspot would have a more vibrant and dynamic community if you gave some newcomers some breathing space, and less would be transient members.

 

[captaincranky]

Contented old timer is definitely not the vibe you give off. Instead, it is that of a hostile forum member who thinks simply having a large post count somehow allows him to transcend the site. Perhaps Techspot would have a more vibrant and dynamic community if you gave some newcomers some breathing space, and less would be transient members.

And then there are those both worthy and destined to be transient.

Like I said, ignore my vibe, (all the while remembering that both in the magnetic and psychological sense), "like poles repel", and take your concerns about Shawn's "inferior writings" up with Julio Franco.

After all, with 14 or so posts at this site, you should be both the quality arbiter and determining factor of all the site's content decisions, not just Shawn's.

If you weren't so desperately trying to outsmart me, and garnering the last word, you'd simply put me on your ignore list and be done with it. You certainly won't be the first, and likely won't be the last. Or are you trying to "cure me", as well?

Like I said, Shawn's titles and content have to be taken with a grain of salt. As for me, I thought my screen name should have given you fair warning as to what to expect. It's kind of a "ride at your own risk", proposition.

Here's the link: https://www.techspot.com/community/forums/site-feedback-and-suggestions.18/ (And you say I'm not accommodating).

 

[merikafyeah]

If you guys want to see the whole story in video form, check out AdoredTV's amazing video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNPcxXZ2ki8
By far the most complete coverage on this topic available on the internet.

Also. https://www.ctsflaws.com/

 

[captaincranky]

...[ ].... Perhaps Techspot would have a more vibrant and dynamic community if you gave some newcomers some breathing space, and less would be transient members.

How about if we address this on its own merit, (or lack thereof). First off, I don't respond to 90% of the threads started at Techspot.. It's hard to fathom how you can make a credible claim as to my sole responsibility for "preventing a vibrant community", when I'm simply not accessing the largest part of said community.

Techspot has its cliques, and I suppose I'm a member in some of them. That being said, I'm sure you'd find those who easily tolerate, if not welcome my participation. Believe it or not, my first impulse is to go for the laughs.

I don't however, suffer fools, chronic complainers, new comers with great expectations of what they feel Techspot owes them, or social justice warriors, well at all.

You sir, have impressed me as a compilation of all those negative traits. Perhaps we've gotten off on the wrong foot. But since you're not shy about sharing your first impressions of me, I feel it somewhat obligatory to share my impressions of you, with you.

As I said in the first paragraph, your concept and concern that Techspot would be a more vibrant community without my bad attitude, is really just an opinion in furtherance of your own self interest., nothing more.

In fact, that's all you've shown thus far as your "contribution", opinion without worthwhile content or contribution.

So, amaze me, make me change my mind about that. I am open minded to the point where I recognize valid contributions, even from members I thoroughly dislike.

 

[AMN3S1AC]

And then there are those both worthy and destined to be transient.

Like I said, ignore my vibe, (all the while remembering that both in the magnetic and psychological sense), "like poles repel", and take your concerns about Shawn's "inferior writings" up with Julio Franco.

After all, with 14 or so posts at this site, you should be both the quality arbiter and determining factor of all the site's content decisions, not just Shawn's.

If you weren't so desperately trying to outsmart me, and garnering the last word, you'd simply put me on your ignore list and be done with it. You certainly won't be the first, and likely won't be the last. Or are you trying to "cure me", as well?

Like I said, Shawn's titles and content have to be taken with a grain of salt. As for me, I thought my screen name should have given you fair warning as to what to expect. It's kind of a "ride at your own risk", proposition.

Here's the link: https://www.techspot.com/community/forums/site-feedback-and-suggestions.18/ (And you say I'm not accommodating).

My issue was originally with he article, in which I voiced my concerns. I was rightfully corrected by the writer of this post that he didn't write it. I apologized to him for the misunderstanding of the use of "your", but indicated that all content written under the Techspot banner reflects on the writers, not just what they personally contribute.

There is no attempt on my part to outsmart you, but when comments that I have never said are put in quotations, I feel, like in the article I complained about, your use of hyperbole to describe my comments is purely designed to mislead.

I have had nothing but praise for this site, except that one flamebait article, I didn't feel the need to escalate it to the next level as you suggest, such as reporting it. I thought it would be enough to voice my concerns in the comments section. You seem to think I want to change your character, I don't. I appreciate your erudite replies, as opposed to the insult laden rants I have been subjected to in the past.

I do understand that as a newcomer to the forums, but not the site in general, there is a lot I don't know about the hierarchy of the members, and I will move on to other articles where I can comment on more positive things.