Time to look for a kernel update...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
98 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to look for a kernel update...

ArnoB
an interesting statement from Intel:
https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-responds-to-security-research-findings/

On 01/04/2018 01:53 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 2018-01-04 at 17:30 +1100, Basil Chupin wrote:
>
>> On 03/01/18 23:02, Roger Oberholtzer wrote:
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/
>>
>> Or is it a 'backdoor' which has been discovered only now?
>
> Second person I see asking that ;-)
>
> I doubt it. A backdoor is done subtly, and you need to control it
> (meaning you need to protect yourself, enable/disable at will).
>
> This thing affects all computers, even those on "your" side. So yes,
> you may attack others, and they can attack you back. You can not be
> sure the bad guys and intelligence agencies don't find about about
> this. There is no way you can secure your own computer, you need a
> redesign of the kernel in a way that affects speed: not something you
> want for yourself.
>
> - -- Cheers,
>        Carlos E. R.
>        (from openSUSE 42.2 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlpOI7cACgkQtTMYHG2NR9WibQCdHBatvcyWQC6JMKzhUE95f84G
> SZoAmwWtWf+z0uBbo7UcLE1CRAWPSonn
> =KZe/
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to look for a kernel update...

Wol's lists
In reply to this post by Roger Oberholtzer-2
On 04/01/18 07:55, Roger Oberholtzer wrote:
> My bigger concern is the speed penalty. Our applications are very
> network and I/O bound (meaning lots of system calls). I wonder what
> the effect will be. There were mentions of up to a 10% speed penalty.
> I hope our use does not suffer that.

You could suffer worse ... TYPICAL slowdown is supposed to be about 5%.
Worst case is nearer 30% I believe ...

Cheers,
Wol

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to look for a kernel update...

James Knott
On 01/04/2018 01:45 PM, Wol's lists wrote:
> On 04/01/18 07:55, Roger Oberholtzer wrote:
>> My bigger concern is the speed penalty. Our applications are very
>> network and I/O bound (meaning lots of system calls). I wonder what
>> the effect will be. There were mentions of up to a 10% speed penalty.
>> I hope our use does not suffer that.
>
> You could suffer worse ... TYPICAL slowdown is supposed to be about
> 5%. Worst case is nearer 30% I believe ...

I see there's a couple of software updates available now,
kernel-firmware and microcode updates for AMD CPUs.  Would these have
anything to do with this problem.

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to look for a kernel update...

James Knott
On 01/04/2018 01:50 PM, James Knott wrote:
>> You could suffer worse ... TYPICAL slowdown is supposed to be about
>> > 5%. Worst case is nearer 30% I believe ...
> I see there's a couple of software updates available now,
> kernel-firmware and microcode updates for AMD CPUs.  Would these have
> anything to do with this problem.

It appears they do.  Here's what the patch description says:

"openSUSE-2018-1 - Security update for kernel-firmware

This update for kernel-firmware fixes the following issues:
- Add microcode_amd_fam17h.bin (bsc#1068032 CVE-2017-5715)
This new firmware disables branch prediction on AMD family 17h processor
to mitigate a attack on the branch predictor that could lead to
information disclosure from e.g. kernel memory (bsc#1068032 CVE-2017-5715)."


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to look for a kernel update...

Daniel Bauer


Am 04.01.2018 um 19:52 schrieb James Knott:

> On 01/04/2018 01:50 PM, James Knott wrote:
>>> You could suffer worse ... TYPICAL slowdown is supposed to be about
>>>> 5%. Worst case is nearer 30% I believe ...
>> I see there's a couple of software updates available now,
>> kernel-firmware and microcode updates for AMD CPUs.  Would these have
>> anything to do with this problem.
>
> It appears they do.  Here's what the patch description says:
>
> "openSUSE-2018-1 - Security update for kernel-firmware
>
> This update for kernel-firmware fixes the following issues:
> - Add microcode_amd_fam17h.bin (bsc#1068032 CVE-2017-5715)
> This new firmware disables branch prediction on AMD family 17h processor
> to mitigate a attack on the branch predictor that could lead to
> information disclosure from e.g. kernel memory (bsc#1068032 CVE-2017-5715)."
>
>
So with intel this doesn't help and must not be installed?
--
Daniel Bauer photographer Basel Barcelona
https://www.patreon.com/danielbauer
http://www.daniel-bauer.com

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to look for a kernel update...

Marcus Meissner
On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 08:12:53PM +0100, Daniel Bauer wrote:

>
>
> Am 04.01.2018 um 19:52 schrieb James Knott:
> >On 01/04/2018 01:50 PM, James Knott wrote:
> >>>You could suffer worse ... TYPICAL slowdown is supposed to be about
> >>>>5%. Worst case is nearer 30% I believe ...
> >>I see there's a couple of software updates available now,
> >>kernel-firmware and microcode updates for AMD CPUs.  Would these have
> >>anything to do with this problem.
> >
> >It appears they do.  Here's what the patch description says:
> >
> >"openSUSE-2018-1 - Security update for kernel-firmware
> >
> >This update for kernel-firmware fixes the following issues:
> >- Add microcode_amd_fam17h.bin (bsc#1068032 CVE-2017-5715)
> >This new firmware disables branch prediction on AMD family 17h processor
> >to mitigate a attack on the branch predictor that could lead to
> >information disclosure from e.g. kernel memory (bsc#1068032 CVE-2017-5715)."
> >
> >
> So with intel this doesn't help and must not be installed?

For Intel the update is "ucode-intel".

it is just part of the fix, the kernel update is needed to implement it.

Ciao, Marcus

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to look for a kernel update...

Carlos E. R.-2
In reply to this post by ArnoB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On Thursday, 2018-01-04 at 18:19 +0100, ArnoB wrote:

> an interesting statement from Intel:
> https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-responds-to-security-research-findings/

"Intel and other technology companies have been made aware of new security
research describing software analysis methods that, when used for
malicious purposes, have the potential to improperly gather sensitive data
from computing devices that are operating as designed. Intel believes
these exploits do not have the potential to corrupt, modify or delete
data."

No?

<https://hardzone.es/2018/01/03/demuestran-fallo-seguridad-intel/>

(Spanish) How easy is to do an exploit proof.


Some more links:

<https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/04/intel_meltdown_spectre_bugs_the_registers_annotations/>

We translated Intel's crap attempt to spin its way out of CPU security bug PR nightmare
As Linus Torvalds lets rip on Chipzilla


(Skipping: Spanish link on what Linus Torvalds said, not nicely)



<https://security-center.intel.com/advisory.aspx?intelid=INTEL-SA-00088&languageid=en-fr>

Speculative Execution and Indirect Branch Prediction Side Channel Analysis Method



<https://meltdownattack.com/>
Meltdown and Spectre

Bugs in modern computers leak passwords and sensitive data.


<https://www.profesionalreview.com/2018/01/04/intel-lanza-una-herramienta-saber-equipo-vulnerable/>
Intel launches a tool to find if a processor is affected. Spanish.



- --
Cheers,
        Carlos E. R.
        (from openSUSE 42.2 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlpOsA0ACgkQtTMYHG2NR9X0zACfdOEZ/PHvWlOh9CxgXVf1SAqD
bQkAn22snnKtjWKx3IeyD1VUYul3KBYM
=fIJd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: time to pressure Intel for a chip replacement (was Re: Time to look for a kernel update...)

Basil Chupin-2
In reply to this post by Carlos E. R.-2
On 04/01/18 23:48, Carlos E. R. wrote:

>
>
> On Wednesday, 2018-01-03 at 23:48 +0100, Yamaban wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2018 19:45, Carlos E. R. <robin.listas@...> wrote:
>
>
> >>  Any method to know if /my/ processor is affected? It was bought
> several
> >>  years ago. A list of exact processor models for looking in
> >>  /proc/cpuinfo, perhaps.
>
> > AFAICT, if is has 'Core' in its name, its affected, as well as all
> > other Processor models of the last 6 years at least, talk is going
> > on on the older models, up to 10 years back is hit in certain models.
>
> Core 2 Duo, so yes, I'm hit.
>
>
> > Check the better sources, e.g. the more serious computer publications
> > or proven to be better informed sources on the internet on details.
>
> Links will pop up in time :-)
>
>
> > Root cause is a 'accelerated' branch pre-execution, in other words,
> > they dropped the security checks to gain speed.
>
> Yes, that part I found out.
>
> Intentionally? They forgot? Ineptitude?
> Did they really think they would not be found out?
> Sigh :-(

But..but...it's taken some 20-odd years to be "found out"! :-)


BC


--
Always be nice to people on your way up -- you'll see
the same people on your way down.



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: time to pressure Intel for a chip replacement (was Re: Time to look for a kernel update...)

John Andersen-2
On 01/04/2018 05:44 PM, Basil Chupin wrote:
> But..but...it's taken some 20-odd years to be "found out"! :-)

As far as YOU know!




--
After all is said and done, more is said than done.

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: time to pressure Intel for a chip replacement (was Re: Time to look for a kernel update...)

James Knott
On 01/04/2018 09:42 PM, John Andersen wrote:
> On 01/04/2018 05:44 PM, Basil Chupin wrote:
>> But..but...it's taken some 20-odd years to be "found out"! :-)
> As far as YOU know!
>
>
Here's something interesting:
http://www.pcgamer.com/intel-ceo-sold-39-million-in-company-shares-prior-to-disclosure-of-cpu-security-flaws/

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: time to pressure Intel for a chip replacement (was Re: Time to look for a kernel update...)

Fraser_Bell
In reply to this post by L A Walsh
On 01/03/2018 08:48 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:

>
> Of course, Intel hasn't stepped up to say they'll replace the faulty
> chips, which seem to be related mostly to Intel-specific chip speedups
> not in other chips (like Intel's "speculative execution" feature that
> pre-executes multiple branches of a conditional ahead of knowing which
> branch will be taken).  Intel has a history of offering replacing HW or
> compensation for their chips being hit by a 20% perf-penalty in the
> field.
>
> Lovely...
> -l

Even if they *did* offer replacements, there would be a lot of machines
that could not take advantage of the offer.

In recent years, Intel's laptop chips are BGA (Bubble Grid Array),
precision-soldered to the motherboard (a precision that cannot be done
by humans, must be done by machine).

In other words, you cannot switch out the CPUs in newer "Intel Inside"
laptops.

As an aside:  I bought a new laptop with one of these new Intel mobile
chips the other day, brought it home, fired it up and it ran like a dog
at high noon in the desert.

My 10+ year-old laptops all ran circles around it, even though it had
quantum-more included Memory.

No problem, I thought, I will get a faster CPU and switch it out ...
until I looked it up only to learn about BGA.

I started checking other Intel Laptops online to discover they were all
BGA, then called a Senior Tech at my major Supplier, only to be told All
Laptops with Intel are now BGA, as far as he knows.

He said that the only way to change the CPU in them is to replace the
complete motherboard.

I did not know this, retired my business a few years ago so have not
been looking inside new laptops for some time, now.

Needless to say, laptop went back to the store.

I am dusting off some of my 10-year-old laptops and reviving them.

I like the superior speed these old beasts provide as well as the option
to be able to replace the CPUs if they burn out.

Sounds like Regression in CPUs rather than Progression, lately.

--
-Gerry Makaro
aka Fraser_Bell on the forums, IRC, and mail at openSUSE.org

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: time to pressure Intel for a chip replacement (was Re: Time to look for a kernel update...)

David C. Rankin
In reply to this post by James Knott
On 01/04/2018 09:25 PM, James Knott wrote:
> Here's something interesting:
> http://www.pcgamer.com/intel-ceo-sold-39-million-in-company-shares-prior-to-disclosure-of-cpu-security-flaws/

Text-book example of insider trading....

--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to look for a kernel update...

Daniel Bauer
In reply to this post by Marcus Meissner


Am 04.01.2018 um 21:25 schrieb Marcus Meissner:
...
>>>
>>> It appears they do.  Here's what the patch description says:
>>>
>>> "openSUSE-2018-1 - Security update for kernel-firmware
...
>>>
>> So with intel this doesn't help and must not be installed?
>
> For Intel the update is "ucode-intel".
>
> it is just part of the fix, the kernel update is needed to implement it.
>

Thanks Marcus!

So with installing Kernel 4.4.104-39-default and ucode-intel installed
with latest zypper up on OS 42.3 I have done what I should?

Sorry for stupid question... these things are far beyond of my horizon
of knowledge...

Daniel

--
Daniel Bauer photographer Basel Barcelona
https://www.patreon.com/danielbauer
http://www.daniel-bauer.com

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to look for a kernel update...

Marcus Meissner
On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 11:47:33AM +0100, Daniel Bauer wrote:

>
>
> Am 04.01.2018 um 21:25 schrieb Marcus Meissner:
> ...
> >>>
> >>>It appears they do.  Here's what the patch description says:
> >>>
> >>>"openSUSE-2018-1 - Security update for kernel-firmware
> ...
> >>>
> >>So with intel this doesn't help and must not be installed?
> >
> >For Intel the update is "ucode-intel".
> >
> >it is just part of the fix, the kernel update is needed to implement it.
> >
>
> Thanks Marcus!
>
> So with installing Kernel 4.4.104-39-default and ucode-intel installed with
> latest zypper up on OS 42.3 I have done what I should?
>
> Sorry for stupid question... these things are far beyond of my horizon of
> knowledge...

Variant 3 aka Meltdown is fixed with the update due to "PTI" being enabled and deployed.

Variant 1 of Spectre has a lot of fixes applied to the kernel, so should be mostly
fixed for the kernel.

Variant 2 of Spectre needs the ucode-intel package, and is partially fixed, as we
only mitigated Haswell-X, Broadwell-X and Skylake-X with the ucode and kernel update
so far.

Ciao, Marcus

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: time to pressure Intel for a chip replacement (was Re: Time to look for a kernel update...)

Liam Proven
In reply to this post by Fraser_Bell
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 19:59:39 -0800
Fraser_Bell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I am dusting off some of my 10-year-old laptops and reviving them.
>
> I like the superior speed these old beasts provide as well as the option
> to be able to replace the CPUs if they burn out.

I currently use a mixture of DDR2 and DDR3 Core 2 Duos and a couple of early Core i5 machines. With 8GB of RAM and an SSD, they're perfectly capable machines for all I need, able to drive 2 big screens each.

And all cost under GBP 150 each.

> Sounds like Regression in CPUs rather than Progression, lately.

Most of tech, really. ;-)


--
Liam Proven - Technical Writer, SUSE Linux s.r.o.
Corso II, Křižíkova 148/34, 186-00 Praha 8 - Karlín, Czechia
Email: [hidden email] - Office telephone: +420 284 241 084



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: time to pressure Intel for a chip replacement (was Re: Time to look for a kernel update...)

Anton Aylward-2
In reply to this post by L A Walsh
I like the idea of an Open Source chip!

<quote src="
http://www.zdnet.com/article/why-intel-x86-must-die-our-cloud-centric-future-depends-on-open-source-chips-meltdown/">

We need to stop thinking about microprocessor systems' architectures as these
licensed things that are developed in secrecy by mega-companies like Intel or
AMD or even ARM.

Sun had the right idea
======================

In 2008, when I wrote the precursor to this article, the now-defunct Sun
Microsystems -- whose intellectual property assets are owned today by Oracle --
decided to open-source a chip architecture, the OpenSPARC T2.

The concept at the time did not exactly fly and didn't get any real takers. What
has since happened to Sun in its absorption by Oracle has been less than
pleasant for all the parties involved, and given the extremely litigious nature
of the company, it is understandable why nobody has latched onto OpenSPARC.

However, despite the history, I think Sun had the right idea at the time. We
need to develop a modern equivalent of an OpenSPARC that any processor foundry
can build upon without licensing of IP, in order to drive down the costs of
building microprocessors at immense scale for the cloud, for mobile and the IoT.

It makes the $200 smartphone as well as hyperscale datacenter lifecycle
management that much more viable and cost-effective.

Just as Linux and open source transformed how we view operating systems and
application software, we need the equivalent for microprocessors in order to
move out of the private datacenter rife with these legacy issues and into the
green field of the cloud.

We need to create something new
===============================

Indeed, there are some risks, such as forking, which has been known to plague
open-source systems -- but, more often than not, it creates an ecosystem of
competition between the well-run communities and the bad ones.

And, more often than not, the good ones emerge as the standards that get embraced.

I cannot say definitively what architecture this new chip family needs to be
based on. However, I don't see ARM donating its IP to this effort, and I think
OpenSPARC may not be it either.

Perhaps IBM POWER? It would certainly be a nice gesture of Big Blue, and it
would help to maintain and establish the company's relevancy in the cloud going
forward.

The reality is that we now need to create something new, free from any legacy
entities and baggage that has been driving the industry and dragging it down the
past 40 years. Just as was done with Linux.

</quote.

--
         A: Yes.
     >   Q: Are you sure?
     >>  A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
     >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: time to pressure Intel for a chip replacement (was Re: Time to look for a kernel update...)

Carlos E. R.-2
In reply to this post by David C. Rankin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On Friday, 2018-01-05 at 04:40 -0600, David C. Rankin wrote:

> On 01/04/2018 09:25 PM, James Knott wrote:
>> Here's something interesting:
>> http://www.pcgamer.com/intel-ceo-sold-39-million-in-company-shares-prior-to-disclosure-of-cpu-security-flaws/
>
> Text-book example of insider trading....

They claim it is unrelated, because the sale was planned before.

- --
Cheers,
        Carlos E. R.
        (from openSUSE 42.2 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlpPfhoACgkQtTMYHG2NR9VlFACfTyFLrT9xYwz+WsHhScDmHGwH
ytEAoJArwdvNEnSkUPIhbRMZHV0sc2lZ
=fF/9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: time to pressure Intel for a chip replacement (was Re: Time to look for a kernel update...)

Carlos E. R.-2
In reply to this post by Basil Chupin-2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On Friday, 2018-01-05 at 12:44 +1100, Basil Chupin wrote:
> On 04/01/18 23:48, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 2018-01-03 at 23:48 +0100, Yamaban wrote:

...

>>> Root cause is a 'accelerated' branch pre-execution, in other words,
>>> they dropped the security checks to gain speed.
>>
>> Yes, that part I found out.
>>
>> Intentionally? They forgot? Ineptitude?
>> Did they really think they would not be found out?
>> Sigh :-(
>
> But..but...it's taken some 20-odd years to be "found out"! :-)

Riiiight.

So... Really trust business and market forces to do the right thing?

- --
Cheers,
        Carlos E. R.
        (from openSUSE 42.2 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlpPfoYACgkQtTMYHG2NR9WKqgCfen1rwKf0lDlW5zdrjlCAGeKV
KPEAnRszlwTaXi/NQCp8+fULPM7rp9CO
=hiAj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: time to pressure Intel for a chip replacement (was Re: Time to look for a kernel update...)

Carlos E. R.-2
In reply to this post by Anton Aylward-2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On Friday, 2018-01-05 at 07:41 -0500, Anton Aylward wrote:

> I like the idea of an Open Source chip!

Me too.

- --
Cheers,
        Carlos E. R.
        (from openSUSE 42.2 x86_64 "Malachite" at Telcontar)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlpPf3IACgkQtTMYHG2NR9XIuwCgg+mTM+wrBZbbUje+vC/JaFj4
Yd8AnRSo/dJukNkDfRCXLToJ7+RhlSg+
=LRbP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: time to pressure Intel for a chip replacement (was Re: Time to look for a kernel update...)

James Knott
In reply to this post by Carlos E. R.-2
On 01/05/2018 08:30 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

>
>
> On Friday, 2018-01-05 at 04:40 -0600, David C. Rankin wrote:
>
> > On 01/04/2018 09:25 PM, James Knott wrote:
> >> Here's something interesting:
> >>
> http://www.pcgamer.com/intel-ceo-sold-39-million-in-company-shares-prior-to-disclosure-of-cpu-security-flaws/
>
> > Text-book example of insider trading....
>
> They claim it is unrelated, because the sale was planned before.
>

From
https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/04/after-meltdown-and-spectre-revelation-questions-arise-about-timing-of-intel-ceos-stock-sales/

"The shares were sold in accordance with a SEC Rule 10b5-1 plan, which
is intended to prevent illegal insider trading by allowing company
executives to create predetermined, automatic selling plans. The Form 4
filed by Krzanich, however, state that the plan was adopted on October
30, 2017—months after Google says it informed Intel and other affected
companies
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cyber-intel/design-flaw-found-in-intel-chips-fix-causes-them-to-slow-report-idUSKBN1ES1BO>
about the bugs in June, which in turn were only made public this week in
reports by The Register
<https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/>and
other media."



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

12345