Here we are - 3600 which was still under manufacture 2-3 years ago are not get patched. Shame on you AMD, if it is true.

  • Victor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    That’s not what I was referring to. I was referring to the act of “adding vulnerabilities”. Surely they aren’t doing that on purpose. And surely they would add fixes for it if it was economically viable? It’s a matter of goodwill and reputation, right?

    I don’t know, I just don’t think it’s AMD’s business model to “screw over” their customers. I just don’t.

    • narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      What I mean by that is that they will take a huge disservice to their customers over a slight financial inconvenience (packaging and validating an existing fix for different CPU series with the same architecture).

      I don’t classify fixing critical vulnerabilities from products as recent as the last decade as “goodwill”, that’s just what I’d expect to receive as a customer: a working product with no known vulnerabilities left open. I could’ve bought a Ryzen 3000 CPU (maybe as part of cheap office PCs or whatever) a few days ago, only to now know they have this severe vulnerability with the label WONTFIX on it. And even if I bought it 5 years ago: a fix exists, port it over!

      I know some people say it’s not that critical of a bug because an attacker needs kernel access, but it’s a convenient part of a vulnerability chain for an attacker that once exploited is almost impossible to detect and remove.