AMD won't patch all chips affected by severe data theft vulnerability — older Ryzen models will not get patched for 'Sinkclose' [Updated]
www.tomshardware.com
AMD says some chips fall outside of the software support window.

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.

  • Grippler@feddit.dkEnglish
    5·
    3 months ago

    what I meant was that apparently only compromised systems are vulnerable to this defect.

    That is not correct. Any system where this vulnerability is not patched out by AMD (which is all of gen 1, 2 and 3 CPUs) is left permanently vulnerable, regardless of whether or not they already are compromised. So if your PC is compromised in a few months for some reason, instead of being able to recover with a reinstall of your OS, your HW is now permanently compromised and would need to be thrown out…just because AMD didn’t want to patch this.

    • Victor@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12·
      3 months ago

      What I meant was exactly that, which you corroborated as correct. You’d first have to already compromise these systems, in order to be able to exploit this vulnerability. That’s as I understood it. It’s that correct?

      Gosh, it’s not easy getting my point across here today, I’m sorry.

      All I’m saying is that I don’t think AMD is doing this to us, on purpose. I think it’s just happened, and they’re not handling it very well, even though it’s somewhat understandable. At least to me. 🤷‍♂️

      But then again, I have no reason to be attacked or have my system compromised, so my situation is better than others’, perhaps.

      • Grippler@feddit.dkEnglish
        2·
        3 months ago

        I think what most people disagree with, is that the active choice from AMD to not fix a very fixable issue, is a choice they know leaves customers is a seriously bad position. This is something they choose to do to their customers, because they could just as well choose to help them.

        • Victor@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          3 months ago

          they could just as well choose to help them.

          I think that’s what I have a hard time believing. If they could “just as well” help, it is my belief that they also would. Because I don’t think they’re morons. I think they know this hurts their reputation. There has to be some obstacle, be it financial or lack of man power or… something. That is my belief.

          Don’t you (all) think that sounds more likely than them just leaving their customers in the dark for no other reason than not having to do work?

          • Grippler@feddit.dkEnglish
            1·
            3 months ago

            Of course there’s a financial reason, they’ve probably done a cost/benefit analysis and decided that it’s financially better to screw over those customers than to spend money fixing it. But that’s exactly the issue!

            • Victor@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              3 months ago

              I mean… 🤷‍♂️ The analysis is made, decision made. I probably have an affected system but… What’s the real risk for private end users? Should I really be so concerned?

              • Grippler@feddit.dkEnglish
                1·
                3 months ago

                Should you really be concerned about a system that can be physically ruined by malware? I would say definitely yes…

                • Victor@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  3 months ago

                  I haven’t had malware on any of my computers for 20+ years. 🤷‍♂️ Ever since I stopped clicking on shitty links on shitty sites and downloading shitty files with unknown contents and such behavior. I don’t think I’m worried. I’m not the target group for these kinds of attacks, I think.