L1 Terminal Fault - The Latest Speculative Execution Side Channel Attack

[schmidtbag]

I react only on things I'm interested in, of course.

Except... you just said earlier "It can't be an interesting and intelligent discussion if it's based on wild speculation" meaning you are responding to these people and arguing with them (so, not holding a friendly discussion) specifically because it doesn't interest you. A bit hypocritical, eh?

I'm sorry to inform that your completely baseless opinion is wrong. Seriously WTF? How can you say that? You know nothing about me, John Snow.
It terminated this "discussion", and threw some useful info out there for him and others reading. That's the best I can do for a stranger over the internet.

"blah blah blah baseless opinion blah blah blah <insert over-used meme>"
It's quite easy for me to say that - whenever you are in one of these arguments, you apparently know everything so it's blatantly obvious that the "BS" that you have to sift through isn't really getting in your way of real information.

I attacked only the statements, and pointed out the mistakes he is making in his reasoning, Of course I'm just a man so I can't provide a 100% emotionless reaction to things.

You are also an asshole who takes things way too seriously and approaches them with too much hostility. That is not inherent of being an emotional man.
EDIT:
Despite being "just a man", everyone else here is just people too. People make mistakes, and you are very unforgiving of them.

Instructions unclear, process terminated. I need more in-depth instructions than "do something about it".

The instructions are actually quite clear: be more polite and less aggressive when correcting people. It's really not hard - most people on these forums do a great job at that.

I'll have to inform you that you are doing all this for yourself, to think you are good and all, not really to help people.

If anything is to be deemed unclear here, it's whatever you meant by that sentence.

I do my best to explain how to fix the issues I'm pointing out, with all limits and flaws I can have.
They don't want to read, fine.

And often, you are actually pretty good at explaining. But explaining doesn't require condescension, insults, and an all-around dismissive or "all-knowing" attitude. Like I said, I know you're not a troll because very often you're right - you're just an asshole. I'm tired of it and I know I'm not the only one. If you can't politely inform someone how they may be wrong without attacking their intellect, then you might as well just move on. As I've told you before, nobody cares if you're right if you piss them off, so what do you gain if the information you provide goes ignored?

At least I'm not saying "you are wrong, you should do better, hurr durr", which serves no other purpose than checking a checkbox on your "good person" list, and helps none.

You're right - instead, you say equally as useless, unproductive, and/or antagonistic things such as:
* "baseless comment"
* "wild speculations"
* "why you seem to support all bullshit tinfoil theories. The most likely reason is stupidity"
* "I'm a truthseeker, please. I don't think freely, I search truth. Thinking freely makes you fall into the pits of your own mind, your main enemy is yourself."
* " I have no way of knowing why you post bullshit."
All of these were from the past 2 pages. I don't think I need to keep going, that's plenty of proof right there.

I have to admit that I'm not 100% sure here, but I would read that as "Weasel agrees that you are mostly using opinions to dispute facts".

Except in this argument with me, I'm the one with the facts here - it is indisputable that you are frequently needlessly antagonistic (case in point - the quotes above). Everything else that I said that's opinionated you have also replied to with opinions, thereby removing any significance to Weasel's comment (again, in this context).

[starshipeleven]

Sure it can, but what makes something interesting is relative. If it doesn't interest you, don't join in the discussion. It's as simple as that.

I react only on things I'm interested in, of course.

You seem to have no problem getting the info you seek.

I'm sorry to inform that your completely baseless opinion is wrong. Seriously WTF? How can you say that? You know nothing about me, John Snow.

So although I can admit wading through the BS is annoying, I don't consider this a valid argument on your part; your antagonism effectively contributes toward it.

It terminated this "discussion", and threw some useful info out there for him and others reading. That's the best I can do for a stranger over the internet.

It's fine to dispute such things, but again, you don't have to be such an asshole about it.

I attacked only the statements, and pointed out the mistakes he is making in his reasoning, Of course I'm just a man so I can't provide a 100% emotionless reaction to things.

Sarcasm or otherwise, it's a shame you won't do anything about it. You're easily the most toxic person on these forums who isn't a troll.

Instructions unclear, process terminated. I need more in-depth instructions than "do something about it".

I'll have to inform you that you are doing all this for yourself, to think you are good and all, not really to help people.

I do my best to explain how to fix the issues I'm pointing out, with all limits and flaws I can have.
They don't want to read, fine.
At least I'm not saying "you are wrong, you should do better, hurr durr", which serves no other purpose than checking a checkbox on your "good person" list, and helps none.

I don't see the relevancy here, or how specifically that supports him.
The gist of Wikipedia article is describing someone who is trying to dispute facts by claiming an opinion; it's a rejection of logic and/or facts. In the context you've quoted, that does not apply.

I have to admit that I'm not 100% sure here, but I would read that as "Weasel agrees that you are mostly using opinions to dispute facts".

Which imho you keep doing even now (see above)

[schmidtbag]

Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_..._to_my_opinion (to support your argument)

I don't see the relevancy here, or how specifically that supports him.
The gist of Wikipedia article is describing someone who is trying to dispute facts by claiming an opinion; it's a rejection of logic and/or facts. In the context you've quoted, that does not apply.

[Weasel]

It can't be an interesting and intelligent discussion if it's based on wild speculation.

I'm sick and tired of bullshit conspiracy theories, it's all noise I have to wad through to get at the info I seek.

I know that quite a bit of it is even spread maliciously as a smokescreen.

Your opinion has been noted, thank you for sharing it.

Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_..._to_my_opinion (to support your argument)

[schmidtbag]

It can't be an interesting and intelligent discussion if it's based on wild speculation.

Sure it can, but what makes something interesting is relative. If it doesn't interest you, don't join in the discussion. It's as simple as that.

I'm sick and tired of bullshit conspiracy theories, it's all noise I have to wad through to get at the info I seek.

You seem to have no problem getting the info you seek. So although I can admit wading through the BS is annoying, I don't consider this a valid argument on your part; your antagonism effectively contributes toward it.

I know that quite a bit of it is even spread maliciously as a smokescreen.

It's fine to dispute such things, but again, you don't have to be such an asshole about it.

Your opinion has been noted, thank you for sharing it.

Sarcasm or otherwise, it's a shame you won't do anything about it. You're easily the most toxic person on these forums who isn't a troll.

[starshipeleven]

Being needlessly antagonistic over what could have been an interesting and intelligent discussion

It can't be an interesting and intelligent discussion if it's based on wild speculation.

I'm sick and tired of bullshit conspiracy theories, it's all noise I have to wad through to get at the info I seek.

I know that quite a bit of it is even spread maliciously as a smokescreen.

he/she doesn't deserve your treatment.

Your opinion has been noted, thank you for sharing it.

[schmidtbag]

starshipeleven
I see you're up to your usual antics of:
* Taking things too literally
* Turning the situation into a personal matter
* Going way too aggressive with your criticisms
* Being needlessly antagonistic over what could have been an interesting and intelligent discussion

I don't know enough about the topic to say who is right or wrong, but even if cybertraveler is wrong, he/she doesn't deserve your treatment. As you can usually be summarized:

[starshipeleven]

Ascribing motive to your opponent so you can strawman argue against the the motive you ascribed.

Sorry what? "ascribing motive" means that I assumed why you did it.

I didn't do that, I have no way of knowing why you post bullshit.

I observed what you did and commented on what reasoning failures you must have made to even consider that theory as worthy of discussion, assuming you actually used reasoning at all.

Because really, it has the same likelihood of being all a Jew plot. I mean, look at all the ties they have to jews in the USA and in Israel. Must be yet another plot of dem'jews to take over the world, right?

[cybertraveler]

Because you didn't. Sorry but I don't bite all the wrapping in "it's just a theory"

Ascribing motive to your opponent so you can strawman argue against the the motive you ascribed. Yeah; I'm done with you.

[starshipeleven]

Secondly; how do you know I haven't applied it to this situation?

Because you didn't. Sorry but I don't bite all the wrapping in "it's just a theory", if it's at the same level of bullshit of "the jews did it" it does not even warrant mentioning.

Really, back in the good old days it was evil spirits, then it was daemons, then it was the jews, now it's NSA or the greys, same bullshit. There is no evil plotting behind the curtain, it's 99.9999% human stupidity.

No reasonable and free thinker would use that kind of sophistry in a conversation with someone they disagree with.

I'm a truthseeker, please. I don't think freely, I search truth. Thinking freely makes you fall into the pits of your own mind, your main enemy is yourself.

I will ignore your comments from here on out when it comes to subjects like this,

Yeah, ignore all the people who dissent with your ideas, that's a great way to self-validate your beliefs. A great way to fall in the pits of your own mind.

Maybe, yeah. I'm wondering if you're aware that you made a claim above that the three letter agencies have been involved in over-arching evil scheming when it comes to the Intel ME. Sounds like a "bullshit tinfoil theory" to me. /s

No, it's our friend Occam's Razor again. If NSA wanted to do some shit would they

-do some weird-ass shenanigans with low-level silicon design that are a total pain in the ass to actually exploit, and can be patched with microcode updates
-take control of something that is basically a hardware-level backdoor and is relatively easily exploitable as all research so far has shown, and rely on something that is seldom if ever updated (board firmware)

What is the easiest and most likely to work well? Hmm?

If I personally was assigned the job of covertly compromising the hardware of popular CPUs, I would consider it desirable to have no links leading back to me and I'd want there to be a plausible alternative explanation for the bugs.

The same applies to ME or UEFI bugs. There is nothing that plainly states that these bugs were planted by someone either, but they allow so much more control over the system that they dwarf Meltdown by orders of magnitude.

I wouldn't have to engineer these bugs myself if I was tasked with creating them. I could bring about these bugs by various means in a management role:

• reduce the testing process to "save money".
• increase stress on engineers by increasing work hours / demands to "get more value out of our engineers".
• encourage re-use of a base design that I know is buggy because "it's cost effective" and "faster than making a new design".
• fire people or promote people to new positions who are looking into fixing the existing bugs because "alternative reasons".

These agencies in the past have apparently done stuff as crazy as surgically implant a cat with a listening devices and released the cat near an embassy to gather intel (look it up). I'm sure if someone at one of these agencies brought up the idea of "secretly compromising hardware by reducing internal QA", that's going to be at least considered.

Again, you are doing the opposite of Occam's Razor, take the most crazy, complex bullshit ideas and try to execute them, when there are far more easy and manageable ways with higher chances of success available.

Planting a bug somewhere is as easy as using the old trick of the trade also used by decent criminal organizations.
You "convince" someone to do it with convincing threats to him/family, AND you pay him handsomely for his "service". This way he cannot just flip it and call the cops on you as if that happened you could just dig up the payment and mysteriously hand this information to the investigators.

Of course this does not require showing up at his door with official NSA cars and official NSA officers with official NSA badges shown in his face.