Remember earlier this year, all the drama about AMD CPU flaws - we should follow that up. A thread.
Show this thread
-
An addendum to my earlier tweet. I didn't learn Trail of Bits had reviewed the PoCs under its standard fee arrangement until two days after I posted my article. ToB should have disclosed the arrangement sooner, and I and all other reporters should have noted it in their articles.
Dan, I mentioned it and it was immaterial because what I said were facts. We get paid for ALL of our work and it doesn't make any of it less trustworthy. I wasn't paid to publicize or promote anything, which I would certainly argue SHOULD get disclosed.
-
-
It’s material, it matters in this one as you were the source backing up the claims. The thing stank (not your thing), it had valid financial questions, and now doesn’t have a website or apparently even exist.
-
The bugs were real, and patched. The existence or lack of a website does not make that any less true. I was not a paid promoter. I was speaking, on my own free will, about facts that only I had access to at the time.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I had no obligation and made no promise to say one thing or another for a third-party, and I never would. That's why some people reported it and others didn't care.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Apologies, Dan. If you told me during our interview, I somehow didn't hear or failed to include the detail in my notes. If that's the case, that was my fault. I do agree with Kevin that in the interest of disclosure, I should have noted the arrangement in my post.
-
Ugh, this is so stupid. They didn’t even offer to pay me. I asked to make it a paid project after it became clear how extensive the work required to review the code would be.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.