AMD shareholders sue AMD

for fux sake read the description and see the huge error they make trying akin "near-zero" risk with no risk.

We did spend a considerable time in this thread explaining the difference between initially claiming near-zero risk and hiding to general public the need of fixes and latter admitting that vulnerability of the CPUs and announcing the development of fixes: "We have defined additional steps through a combination of processor microcode updates and OS patches". <-- Underlined the relevant part.
 
We did spend a considerable time in this thread explaining the difference between initially claiming near-zero risk and hiding to general public the need of fixes and latter admitting that vulnerability of the CPUs and announcing the development of fixes: "We have defined additional steps through a combination of processor microcode updates and OS patches". <-- Underlined the relevant part.
And in typical fashion you leave out context and apparent good sense. "Near-Zero" does not mean no fixes as you and the rest of the ignorant online masses in defense of Intel have propagated. Just because that is what you and the litigious few wish it to mean does not make it so. Even today AMD has still claimed a near zero risk on part #2. Even today the proper intelligent masses claim AMD has "no" impact from Meltdown, yet you still attempt to obfuscate that fact as to deter any ship jumpers from leaving the "ship on fire" afore known as Intel. You have not once commented "DIRECTLY" on the individual impacts of each part #1-3 or how they are in point of fact implemented ie: Physical access or remote (big difference here). You only comment that since there is a patch there must be a huge issue simply because you are ignorant of the REAL facts and further more wish to obfuscate the facts in service of Intel.

I just hope that the general public realizes once seeing the drivel that you spew from one forum to the next is nothing more than propaganda and ignorant attempts at spreading illusions in defense of a known immoral entity.
 
The point comes down to "near zero" this is not a absolute, it is not a warrant against defect and so the term is vague enough to cover potential defects. From my experience these terms are often accepted by judiciaries and insufficient to prove the cause of action. I think there are going to be a few seriously unhappy shareholders chasing a buck here, they will fork out a fortune on legal costs and lose. Also AMD stock is up again beyond the hysteria drop.

These kinds of shareholders are opportunistic sharks
 
And in typical fashion you leave out context and apparent good sense. "Near-Zero" does not mean no fixes as you and the rest of the ignorant online masses in defense of Intel have propagated.

Of course, "Near-Zero" doesn't mean "no fixes", but you keep ignoring that AMD engineers were developing those fixes, whereas the marketing dept hided them from public announcements.
 
Of course, "Near-Zero" doesn't mean "no fixes", but you keep ignoring that AMD engineers were developing those fixes, whereas the marketing dept hided them from public announcements.

Of course they could have gone the intel route, sat in silence then went full trump, talk and talk about nothing in general, related to the topic on hand. Just say it will be okay. Sometimes it is better to be proactive, something it seems intel are not being and again being ripped a new one by Linus. On the hardware side the problem seems manifestly worse for team blue, the gripe for team red is over language used in a technical sheet, I can see how you can make this out like team red is the bad one here.
 
Of course they could have gone the intel route, sat in silence then went full trump, talk and talk about nothing in general, related to the topic on hand. Just say it will be okay. Sometimes it is better to be proactive, something it seems intel are not being and again being ripped a new one by Linus. On the hardware side the problem seems manifestly worse for team blue, the gripe for team red is over language used in a technical sheet, I can see how you can make this out like team red is the bad one here.

This thread is about AMD. So I'm talking about AMD, about what AMD did wrong, about the people who sued AMD. Go figure!
 
Of course, "Near-Zero" doesn't mean "no fixes", but you keep ignoring that AMD engineers were developing those fixes, whereas the marketing dept hided them from public announcements.
BS as usual. Where is the proof of "hidden" fixes. They never mentioned any fixes in the initial report only impact of each variant. Then mentioned the roll out. Again this is you attempting to make a mountain out of a mole hill and inject more ignorance and vagueness as to adhere equal issue with AMD as with Intel, whereas Intel is far worse off.
 
BS as usual. Where is the proof of "hidden" fixes.

#103

Resume: Day 3 we know AMD is vulnerable and needs patches. Day 3 AMD makes first marketing statement and hides the need for fixes. Day 4 kernel developers already working in fixes in collaboration with AMD engineers. Day 11 AMD updates its public marketing statements and confirms the need for "additional steps through a combination of processor microcode updates and OS patches that we will make available to AMD customers and partners to further mitigate the threat". I underlined key words.
 
#103

Resume: Day 3 we know AMD is vulnerable and needs patches. Day 3 AMD makes first marketing statement and hides the need for fixes. Day 4 kernel developers already working in fixes in collaboration with AMD engineers. Day 11 AMD updates its public marketing statements and confirms the need for "additional steps through a combination of processor microcode updates and OS patches that we will make available to AMD customers and partners to further mitigate the threat". I underlined key words.
They don't identify a need for additional steps, they simply make them available for anyone who requires maximum system security (I would say guaranteed security, but there is no guarantee in cyber security). Further is a keyword, but because it recognizes the existing mitigating features (a different architecture, according to amd).
 
They don't identify a need for additional steps, they simply make them available for anyone who requires maximum system security (I would say guaranteed security, but there is no guarantee in cyber security). Further is a keyword, but because it recognizes the existing mitigating features (a different architecture, according to amd).

The exact wording of the update of the day 11 is "We have defined additional steps through a combination of processor microcode updates and OS patches", but those additional steps had been defined much before and AMD hided the need for those additional steps in the first public statements. The meaning of "further mitigate the threat" is obvious.
 
The exact wording of the update of the day 11 is "We have defined additional steps through a combination of processor microcode updates and OS patches", but those additional steps had been defined much before and AMD hided the need for those additional steps in the first public statements. The meaning of "further mitigate the threat" is obvious.
Again, there is no need. They did not disclose their existence, that much I don't dispute, but their stance is that they are not required for a safe and secure system that is protected from spectre to a degree that most people would be satisfied with. Even database users and DoD would probably be fine without the patches, but they were made because they simply do not want to take chances (for good reason).
 
You are plain wrong.

The IBRS technique mentioned in the Fudzilla link that you gave us in your post #122 is a technique for Spectre not for Meltdown.

The IBRS, IBPB, and retpoline techniques discussed by Linus and David in the LKML thread I have given are techniques for Spectre.

Well if you learned how to quote things would be easier. What I linked is symptomatic for how Intel approaches problems like someone on this forum there great at deflecting instead of addressing the issues.

And when the time comes and I'll be sure to rub it in again ...
 
their stance is that they are not required for a safe and secure system that is protected from spectre to a degree that most people would be satisfied with. Even database users and DoD would probably be fine without the patches, but they were made because they simply do not want to take chances (for good reason).

What are you stating? Those patches are enabled by default for AMD hardware on both Windows and linux.
 
Get Back on Topic or Get Banned. If I have to come in here again and clean up a load of posts, your account will go with them.
 
Sorry Kyle, won't happen again.
What are you stating? Those patches are enabled by default for AMD hardware on both Windows and linux.

The patch for Meltdown is in the linux kernel, but it's not enabled by default for AMD. I'm not sure which patches are for the other variants (if any exist yet), so I cannot refute your statement entirely. Can you further support your statement? I'd concede if you can. Otherwise, I'll just have to stop here. I'd rather not get banned for accidentally going off topic again.... (though, I guess I should have known better than to post that last post)
 
Last edited:
Another new investigation for the same motives

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...nc-and-zais-group-holdings-inc-300585629.html

I believe this makes the number five.
That is a fishing expedition. Just another law firm looking for them easy bucks. Did you check out the form they wanted you to fill out if you owned AMD stock? It has nothing about stock worth or any questions other than you own stock currently. This type of behavior is not uncommon in the US law system and never seen as conclusive of anything more than the firm being ambulance chasers.
 
Stock up 16% despite security flaws, yet somehow they suffered loss. Stock trading is gambling you accept your gains and losses, it is pretty funny to try attribute loss by X when the trend shows you made money.
 
That is a fishing expedition. Just another law firm looking for them easy bucks. Did you check out the form they wanted you to fill out if you owned AMD stock? It has nothing about stock worth or any questions other than you own stock currently. This type of behavior is not uncommon in the US law system and never seen as conclusive of anything more than the firm being ambulance chasers.

It is AMD's fault. If since the first minute AMD had communicated to the general public what some of us know since the first minute --AMD CPUs are vulnerable and OS patches and microcode updates are being developed--, then nothing of this had happened.
 
Last edited:
It is AMD's fault. If since the first minute AMD had communicated clearly that we know since the first minute --that AMD CPUs are vulnerable and need OS patches and microcode updates-- then nothing of this had happened.
can you rewrite this, I have no clue what the hell you are saying.
 
Everyone has a low risk chance of contracting TB, you take injections to prevent this risk and you may or may not ever contract the virus there is no guarantee, that doesn't mean you don't keep advancing treatment against it or take preventative measure against it. Most live out their lives without contracting TB. This applies here, AMD may not exhibit the vulnerability to the intrusion, but that doesn't mean you should not do anything to mitigate against it. Near zero is perfectly sufficient in terms of describing potential risk.
 
Back
Top