It's odd to publicly state that they didn't know about it, because now if they don't do the same after the next big flaw comes out, the implication will be that they indeed knew and were quietly exploiting it. I thought that was why they generally don't comment on these things. The less-charitable assumption is that they'll make this claim every time regardless of whether it's true.

The claim that "the U.S. government would never put a major company like Intel in a position of risk" is obviously bullshit. TAO's job necessarily involves exposing companies both in the US and overseas to that kind of risk on a daily basis.

Implications? Who cares what the peanut gallery thinks?

It's the type of announcement that makes me wonder if they had the chip makers incorporate it specifically for them to exploit.

> It's the type of announcement that makes me wonder if they had the chip makers incorporate it specifically for them to exploit.

...sorry, what?

It makes you wonder if the NSA had chip makers incorporate speculative execution and caching because... timing attacks?

No.

It's just that it's highly suspicious that anyone is making any type of mention of it at all.

That is an odd one. Why say that instead of of the usual, "we can't comment on that".

> U.S. government would never put a major company like Intel in a position of risk like this to try to hold open a vulnerability." [1]

They subverted the Dual_EC_DRBG standardization process. Had they not been caught and the algorithm ended up on more devices they would be hurting not just major companies but whole industries.

Also for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullrun_(decryption_program)

<tinfoil>

Note that it talks about "the flaw", whereas Intel claims it isn't a "flaw". So could be another instance of overly specific denial. "We didn't exploit this flaw, because it isn't a flaw. We exploited the processor operating as designed".

</tinfoil>

> the U.S. government would never put a major company like Intel in a position of risk like this to try to hold open a vulnerability

The US government sure. The NSA? They sure would as this statement shows.

Are you arguing that the NSA does not fall under the umbrella of the "US Government"?