From nobody Fri Jun 17 07:33:36 2022
X-Original-To: freebsd-security@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1])
	by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE6F084169F
	for <freebsd-security@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:33:44 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rfg@tristatelogic.com)
Received: from outgoing.tristatelogic.com (segfault.tristatelogic.com [69.62.255.118])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4LPW4R1jx3z3tFg
	for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 07:33:43 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rfg@tristatelogic.com)
Received: by segfault.tristatelogic.com (Postfix, from userid 1237)
	id 398B44E7CE; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 00:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com>
To: "freebsd-security@freebsd.org" <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: Intel CPU CVE Issue: CVE-2022-21166/CVE-2022-21125/CVE-2022-21123
In-Reply-To: <90e55cbc-a0f7-7220-3759-e05dee2daaf9@inbox.lv>
List-Id: Security issues <freebsd-security.freebsd.org>
List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-security
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-security+help@freebsd.org>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:freebsd-security+subscribe@freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:freebsd-security+unsubscribe@freebsd.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <41716.1655451216.1@segfault.tristatelogic.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 00:33:36 -0700
Message-ID: <41717.1655451216@segfault.tristatelogic.com>
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4LPW4R1jx3z3tFg
X-Spamd-Bar: /
Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org;
	dkim=none;
	dmarc=none;
	spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of rfg@tristatelogic.com designates 69.62.255.118 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=rfg@tristatelogic.com
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.08 / 15.00];
	 ARC_NA(0.00)[];
	 FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[];
	 TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[];
	 R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx];
	 MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain];
	 DMARC_NA(0.00)[tristatelogic.com];
	 NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.67)[-0.671];
	 NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.42)[0.422];
	 RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1];
	 MID_RHS_MATCH_FROMTLD(0.00)[];
	 NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.62)[0.624];
	 TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_ALL(0.00)[];
	 MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-security];
	 RCVD_COUNT_ZERO(0.00)[0];
	 FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[];
	 R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[];
	 MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+];
	 ASN(0.00)[asn:14051, ipnet:69.62.128.0/17, country:US]
X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N

In message <90e55cbc-a0f7-7220-3759-e05dee2daaf9@inbox.lv>, 
John Long <codeblue@inbox.lv> wrote:

>1st of all, my comment was because of your post but was not directed at 
>you. Sorry if that was unclear.
>
>2nd of all, great that they give advice. Not so great that people have 
>to actually do the work. This costs everybody *besides Intel* a lot of 
>money and there is no end in sight.
>
>How about if Intel gives refunds to people afflicted by their defective 
>products and pays remediation costs to software projects similarly 
>afflicted? Maybe that would give them incentive to do a better job with 
>the junk they're selling.


There's neither any need nor any point to being rude to the guy.  He just
asked a couple of simple simple questions.  It's not his job to issue
refunds for Intel's broken & insecure processors.  (He doesn't even work
for Intel.)


Regards,
rfg