Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 23:33:23 -0400
From: "Joey Mengele" <joey.mengele@...hmail.com>
To: <monikerd@...il.com>,<ge@...uxbox.org>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Remote hole in OpenBSD 4.1

LOLOLOL STOP NAMEDROPPING YOU GAY BASHING KIKE

J

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 05:19:13 -0400 Gadi Evron <ge@...uxbox.org> 
wrote:
>Sorry, I don't know who gadievron@...oo.com is, but it wasn't me. 
>I'd 
>suggest emailing Rocky, he likes big guys. :)
>
>Thanks,
>
> 	Gadi.
>
>On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, monikerd wrote:
>
>> Gadi Evron wrote:
>>> I formerly had a great deal of respect, bordering on 
>admiration, for Theo
>>> deRaadt's refusals to compromise his open source principles, 
>even in the
>>> face of stiff opposition. Although he has occasionally gone 
>over-the-top,
>>> recommended some frankly very dubious changes to OpenBSD, and 
>is regularly
>>> arrogant (which is even more annoying because he's so often 
>right!), he's
>>> always remained consistent in his devotion to the cause of 
>GNU/Free Software.
>>>
>>> Notice "formerly": my confidence in deRaadt has been soundly 
>shaken by his
>>> latest round of unfounded aspersions cast against Intel's Core 
>2 line of
>>> CPUs. Instead of getting the facts with careful analysis and 
>study, deRaadt
>>> has jumped the gun by trying to preempt proper research with 
>posts to the
>>> openbsd-misc mailing list. This in itself wouldn't be so bad, 
>but his only
>>> proper citation is a 404 page, and his only other source is an 
>old summary
>>> of unverified errata from a hobbyist website.
>>>
>>> The lack of fact-checking and complete absence of any credible 
>sources for
>>> his allegations is suspicious in itself, but he compounds it 
>into a complete
>>> boner by making an equally unsupported claim that the supposed 
>(in fact
>>> non-existent) CPU problems are security flaws:
>>>
>>> As I said before, hiding in this list are 20-30 bugs that 
>cannot be worked
>>> around by operating systems, and will be potentially 
>exploitable. I would
>>> bet a lot of money that at least 2-3 of them are.
>>>
>>> Without real references to backup his exaggerated concerns, 
>deRaadt's post
>>> crosses the line into outright libel and scare-mongering. It's 
>obvious when
>>> you know what to look for: the subtle use of neurolinguistic 
>priming in
>>> emotive leading phrases such as "some errata like AI65, AI79, 
>AI43, AI39,
>>> AI90, AI99 scare the hell out of us", "Open source operating 
>systems are
>>> largely left in the cold", "hiding in this list", and so forth. 
>This does
>>> not lead me to share Theo's purported fears; instead it leads 
>me to believe
>>> that he's trying to unduly influence Intel's reputation with 
>lies.
>>>
>>> I have an idea of why. It's the same reason deRaadt feels 
>comfortable in
>>> saying that he'd "bet a lot of money" on Intel's Core 2 
>processors having
>>> multiple (not one, but several) security flaws originating from 
>these
>>> errata. Namely, one of Intel's largest competitors has supplied 
>the OpenBSD
>>> project with a substantial amount of monetary support since 
>2004, presumably
>>> because they can't compete even in the open source market 
>without propping
>>> it up with a flow of money. They cannot maintain their position 
>on the
>>> processor front, so they're resorting to buying out open source 
>software
>>> developers. It's regrettably cheap to do so, even if they have 
>deRaadt's
>>> prestige, because their business models stifle income and so a 
>monolith such
>>> as AMD can trivially tempt them with greater incentives. In 
>fact deRaadt is
>>> an easier target for "donations" because he makes it clear that 
>he has no
>>> business model for OpenBSD.
>>>
>>> Intel, by contrast, have no discernable incentive to deceive or 
>play down
>>> security flaws in their products; the consecutive f00f and FDIV 
>bugs of the
>>> past have taught Intel that their best course of action is to 
>face up to
>>> their errors and offer speedy fixes.
>>>
>>> DeRaadt's claim that Intel must "be come [sic] more 
>transparent" is most
>>> unfounded, especially when one considers who stands to benefit 
>from this
>>> anti-Intel arrangement; the connections between the AMD-ATI 
>leviathan and
>>> deRaadt-driven projects are not hard to find. AMD make a point 
>of
>>> emphasising OpenBSD's place in the "AMD64 ecosystem", and, as 
>already
>>> mentioned, lends its deep pockets to deRaadt's grasp. And the 
>connections go
>>> both ways too: deRaadt has a blatant chip on his shoulder 
>regarding Intel.
>>>
>>> Ultimately, it hasn't been enough for deRaadt to level 
>unsubstantiated
>>> libels at Intel, or to elicit spurious security fears about its 
>solidly
>>> tested products. He's added an extra layer of hypocrisy on top 
>by attacking
>>> Intel for being opaque and complaining about made-up fatal 
>flaws in their
>>> Core 2 system. I would go as far as to posit that it is in fact 
>deRaadt's
>>> system for running the OpenBSD project which has a fatal flaw. 
>This escapade
>>> proves that deRaadt -- and by extension the OpenBSD project -- 
>is simply too
>>> vulnerable to external influence from corporations with a 
>vested interest
>>> and lots of lucre.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>___________________________________________________________________
>_________________Ready for the edge of your seat?
>>> Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
>>> http://tv.yahoo.com/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>>> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>>> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>>>
>>>
>> Nice try, but (Wrong list). Too little to late.
>>
>> firstly you employ the trick of "accuse them first" when you get 
>to
>> "neurolinguistic priming"
>> your text is full of it. Basically that's all your email is.
>>
>> Theo's posts were quite some time ago, and then neither of the 
>links
>> were 404.
>>
>> Also your topic is misleading.
>>
>> Your mail cites even fewer references. Does not contribute 
>anything new.
>>
>> You are basically saying you disagree. well ladida. That's your 
>right.
>> Didn't need to use that
>> many ascii or fancy words for that.
>>
>> If a major cpu does not perform to specifications, this is a big 
>deal,
>> seeing as you only now
>> have come to hear about it, signifies how much it has been 
>downplayed.
>>
>> Theo's methods and arguments, are often flawed in several ways, 
>and he's
>> sure been
>> known to overreact. However usually the underlying theme is 
>pretty accurate.
>> And in this case he's saying. FCOL you are degrading my 
>operating
>> system's quality
>> on these chips and not even releasing the information I need, to 
>fix it.
>>
>> "no discernable incentive to deceive" --> are you kidding here 
>or just stupid?
>> - It has stock holders
>> - what would it cost to recall the chips? When there is no 
>replacement yet?
>>
>>
>> Now I like Intel, I realize what adverse effects releasing all 
>the details could be
>> concerning IP (yes these guys are kinda careful with that, 
>stockholders again ..)
>> reputation, balance sheets, ...
>>
>>
>> I'm pretty sure this conversation has already taken place.We'll 
>see how it plays out.
>>
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

--
Click to publish your book fast with high quality presses.
http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/Ioyw6h4dAxJttsoPDFjmdNC1ELQthVrG71IBJJERtXE2ra4aWWpwqU/

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists