←back to thread

Intel x86 considered harmful – survey of attacks against x86 over last 10 years

(blog.invisiblethings.org)
276 points chei0aiV | 6 comments | 27 Oct 15 14:51 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
n0us ◴[27 Oct 15 15:13 UTC] No.10458463[source]▶
I really could do without "considered harmful" titles. x86 has been one of the most influential technologies of all time and a clickbait title doesn't do it justice imo.
replies(7): >>10458515 #>>10458617 #>>10458692 #>>10458787 #>>10458861 #>>10459018 #>>10459478 #
1. wmil ◴[27 Oct 15 15:31 UTC] No.10458617[source]▶
You should write a paper explaining your views. And title it "'Considered Harmful' Considered Harmful".
replies(1): >>10458627 #
2. pgeorgi ◴[27 Oct 15 15:32 UTC] No.10458627[source]▶
> And title it "'Considered Harmful' Considered Harmful".

http://meyerweb.com/eric/comment/chech.html

[edit: clarified context]

replies(1): >>10458697 #
3. tptacek ◴[27 Oct 15 15:41 UTC] No.10458697[source]▶
This isn't an "essay", nor is it "axe grinding". It's one of the best current available surveys on X86 platform security.

Go to SCHOLAR.GOOGLE.COM and search for "* considered harmful". Most of what Meyer has to say about "considered harmful essays" don't apply to these papers.

replies(2): >>10458711 #>>10459432 #
4. pgeorgi ◴[27 Oct 15 15:42 UTC] No.10458711{3}[source]▶
I was merely referring to the 'And title it "'Considered Harmful' Considered Harmful".' part of the parent post.
5. pbsd ◴[27 Oct 15 17:09 UTC] No.10459432{3}[source]▶
As far as academic articles go, "* considered harmful" is probably as vague and bombastic (read: clickbaity) as a title gets (perhaps after 'Ron was wrong, Whit is right'). Personally I'd prefer a more descriptive title, like 'A survey of weaknesses and attacks on the x86 platform'. But then again, I'm a boring kind of person.
replies(1): >>10459746 #
6. ◴[27 Oct 15 17:44 UTC] No.10459746{4}[source]▶