|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
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 >
