|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
IMO giving an ID to vulnerable microcode fits the goals of the CVE, both originally and now. Lovely catch, Kurt. Pascal On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 00:43 +0000, Landfield, Kent B wrote: > I agree. This seems to be in need of a CVE. Is AMD aware of it? > > Kent Landfield > +1.817.637.8026 > > On Mar 23, 2017, at 7:34 PM, Kurt Seifried > <kurt@seifried.org<mailto:kurt@seifried.org>> wrote: > > So a Linux/Windows kernel crash triggered by a normal user would get > a CVE. Why doesn't this get a CVE? Especially as it's fixable with a > microcode update... > > http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=167605 > http://forum.hwbot.org/showpost.php?p=480524 > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13924192 > > I think we need to cover hardware cases where it bricks/crashes the > system/hardware at a minimum. > > Also I always thought AMD was a CNA, but they're not? > > -- > Kurt Seifried > kurt@seifried.org<mailto:kurt@seifried.org>
