this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
1336 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
59708 readers
5367 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Idk unpatcheable vulnerability for the core component of the system seems pretty negligent but what do I know
Not like they make boat loads of profit and are definitely just cutting corners on aspects of staffing to save extra money up for when the planet inevitably burns down (due to the very same people)
The vulnerability is much more of an issue for Tesla('s profits) than the owners. It's not a simple exploit and not the worst concern for average users of those chips. You have to have physical access to it in order to exploit it, as well as a system worth hacking (think, national security trying to prevent compromised personnel from physically using the exploit on their systems). I'm not worried about someone breaking into my house to physically hack my computer, just to find some memes and bullshit
It still has to be addressed by both Intel and AMD, because that's their whole industry. But recalls and such aren't needed, because bugs can be exploited all over the place and this one isn't a high level risk for the average end-user. It's more of a concern for Intel/AMD reputation and the large industry users of their chips
It’s an vuln for everyone who owns the gen 2 or 3 ryzens though nonetheless. That includes any businesses, which would then mean that consumers could be at risk as well.
I’m not fan of downplaying a vulns severity solely based on a physicality requirement