The website, http://amdflaws.com , is gone. It redirects to http://cts-labs.com , which makes no mention of the issue. As far as I can establish the company is MIA.
-
Show this thread
-
When the story broke in March the website had a disclaimer saying the researchers may have stocks in AMD, which was never clarified, with positions to short stock. In actual fact the stock shot up in value.pic.twitter.com/d0e8bM1SCd
2 replies 3 retweets 15 likesShow this thread -
The researchers didn’t inform AMD until just before publication as they claimed AMD would never fix the issues. AMD did fix the issues. At the same time as website went live an investment website for shorters issued a large report saying the chips would have to be destroyed (??).
1 reply 3 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
The moderator of /r/netsec somehow got paid over 10k to back up the research in the press, which fed into breathless press stories at the time. Did seem weird everybody involved had a financial incentive.
6 replies 4 retweets 28 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GossiTheDog
This was fully disclosed in our blog post, and I stand behind everything we said. I think it's unfortunate how it played out in the press, however, I think we were one of the only voices of reason through it all. https://blog.trailofbits.com/2018/03/15/amd-flaws-technical-summary/ …
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @dguido @GossiTheDog
Second, we weren't paid to "back up" anything to the press. We were paid for a thorough technical investigation of a piece of software. No one can pay me to lie, or hype anything and then promote it on their behalf.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @dguido @GossiTheDog
Third, you'll note that even AMD cited our public analysis of the vulnerabilities in their reporting: https://community.amd.com/community/amd-corporate/blog/2018/03/21/initial-amd-technical-assessment-of-cts-labs-research … I'm not sure how you think I should have acted differently?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dguido
Personally I believe it was important you being paid by CTS Labs was mentioned in the reporting, because independent sources matter. However that’s up to reporters to establish and list.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GossiTheDog @dguido
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dangoodin001 @GossiTheDog
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.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.
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.