> Only mentioning this here just in case the PR spin doctors threaten the researchers into removing mention of Intel on this one.
> Only mentioning this here just in case the PR spin doctors threaten the researchers into removing mention of Intel on this one. Which honestly I hope doesn't happen because my interpretation is that Intel asked for that long embargo...
Key part of that closing paragraph:
> ... my interpretation is that Intel asked for that long embargo ... and ... not everybody's going to come to that same conclusion...
If mentioning here to mitigate spin doctoring, the important thing to record in case Intel made them remove it would be the explicitly not open to interpretation paragraph I cited above.
https://github.com/FPSG-UIUC/hertzbleed/pull/4
19 pages of detail, "Hertzbleed: Turning Power Side-Channel Attacks Into Remote Timing Attacks on x86 (USENIX 2022)"
> … again telling us that there indeed WAS a long embargo placed on this research by Intel.
These are worded as if this wasn’t clear? No guesswork, the article states it plainly:
”We disclosed our findings, together with proof-of-concept code, to Intel, Cloudflare and Microsoft in Q3 2021 and to AMD in Q1 2022. Intel originally requested our findings be held under embargo until May 10, 2022. Later, Intel requested a significant extension of that embargo, and we coordinated with them on publicly disclosing our findings on June 14, 2022.”