Well Intel apparently knew of the vulnerability at the beginning of November, before Krzanich filed with the board to liquidate his holdings. Now, whether Krzanich was aware of it at the time he filed is the thing that needs to be looked at. I'm sure SEC will poke around a bit here. Knowledge of the vulnerability would absolutely be considered material, non-public information and open him up for an insider trading lawsuit. The oddity is that Krzanich sold everything he could; he liquidated all but the 250,000 shares he's contractually obligated to retain while he's CEO.
Worth noting: shareholders can pursue their own civil investigation separately from the SEC. Obviously, that can't land him in jail but it can lose him the job and cost him a lot of renumeration.
Well Intel apparently knew of the vulnerability at the beginning of November, before Krzanich filed with the board to liquidate his holdings. Now, whether Krzanich was aware of it at the time he filed is the thing that needs to be looked at. I'm sure SEC will poke around a bit here. Knowledge of the vulnerability would absolutely be considered material, non-public information and open him up for an insider trading lawsuit. The oddity is that Krzanich sold everything he could; he liquidated all but the 250,000 shares he's contractually obligated to retain while he's CEO.
Worth noting: shareholders can pursue their own civil investigation separately from the SEC. Obviously, that can't land him in jail but it can lose him the job and cost him a lot of renumeration.
All of this is dependent on whether or not he know about the issue, which I highly doubt. Some CEO's might know the technical details to that level of granularity, but it's more likely that he's the last to know because if you had screwed up a product to that extent, you'd want to keep it as far away from the flag pole as possible. Intel is s huge company with 106K+ employees.
If the CTO or anyone else had made such moves within any kind of correlatable time period to what he did, then yeah they'd all fry I'm sure. But As the article said employees with stock options trade in and out all the time. Proving that he did anything wrong would take "smoking gun" emails and voicemails and witnesses attesting saying something really stupid like he was going to do X, Y and Z because of a defect in a chip.
That's unlikely.
That said, he probably will be resigning over this, but the parachute will be golden.
Well he's been there since 82, so you may be right. Maybe not. I'd let the feds take it from here.Sorry dude but I think you are way off. A vulnerability of this magnitude would have made it to his desk a long time ago. Intel was informed in June.
Nobody should be resigning over this. This is an industry wide issue that’s been a problem for like two decades. There’s no one person that is at fault here.
Oh, crap. I'm slipping. Here I go...somebody stop me.../rant on
My biggest pet peeve is that modern software simply sucks. Many programmers are lazy and write slow and bloated code.
No sense of poetry.
AmenUpdate installed here. Computer doesn't feel any slower. Compilation times seem about the same.
Not a fan, and never was, of the Intel architecture. One of the better general purpose chips I used was the PowerPC. Shame that didn't make inroads.
/rant on
My biggest pet peeve is that modern software simply sucks. Many programmers are lazy and write slow and bloated code. Much of what I do today is not much different than what I did 20 years ago yet the programs are slower now than they were back then.
Case in point: schematic capture. I use a program called OrCad. The best version ever of OrCad is 9.02. This was released in 2000 and runs just fine on Windows 7. It performed well on a PC back in 2000. It's blindingly fast on a modern PC. Shortly after OrCad 9.02 was released the company was sold to Cadence and development moved overseas.
For some of my latest work I was forced to update to the latest version OrCad 17.x. It sucks. It doesn't do much more than 9.02 yet's it's painfully slow. The OrCad 9.02 installer is a couple hundred MB. 17.x is five CDs. Five!!! You can tell much of what was added was done in Java or something on top of the original code as the dialog boxes look different than the standard Windows dialog boxes. If you open more than several pages of schematics you basically can't do anything because it takes 10 seconds to simply change a resistor value due to the program using hundreds and hundreds of megabytes of memory. The old version only uses about 40 MB opening the same design.
I called Cadence and complained and got a bunch of lip service. Eventually they scheduled a tech support session. That was useless. "Angela" (whose real name was probably Pasha or Pradeetha or something) who was using some sort of VoIP thing and some cheap GoToMeeting clone spent most of the time trying to tell me (when I could understand what she was saying between the thick Indian accent and glitchy VoIP quality) that I wasn't using the program correctly. "Why do you insist on opening 10 pages of schematics?" Uhhh, so I can see what's going on in the design.
For some of our embedded development we use Eclipse. One of the slowest and most bloated pieces of software on the planet. Again probably all written in Java. A single instance of Eclipse with less than a dozen files open uses nearly 1GB of memory. 1GB!!!!! for a glorified text editor.
/rant off
FAS Software Solutions is the next venture, then?Update installed here. Computer doesn't feel any slower. Compilation times seem about the same.
Not a fan, and never was, of the Intel architecture. One of the better general purpose chips I used was the PowerPC. Shame that didn't make inroads.
/rant on
My biggest pet peeve is that modern software simply sucks. Many programmers are lazy and write slow and bloated code. Much of what I do today is not much different than what I did 20 years ago yet the programs are slower now than they were back then.
Case in point: schematic capture. I use a program called OrCad. The best version ever of OrCad is 9.02. This was released in 2000 and runs just fine on Windows 7. It performed well on a PC back in 2000. It's blindingly fast on a modern PC. Shortly after OrCad 9.02 was released the company was sold to Cadence and development moved overseas.
For some of my latest work I was forced to update to the latest version OrCad 17.x. It sucks. It doesn't do much more than 9.02 yet's it's painfully slow. The OrCad 9.02 installer is a couple hundred MB. 17.x is five CDs. Five!!! You can tell much of what was added was done in Java or something on top of the original code as the dialog boxes look different than the standard Windows dialog boxes. If you open more than several pages of schematics you basically can't do anything because it takes 10 seconds to simply change a resistor value due to the program using hundreds and hundreds of megabytes of memory. The old version only uses about 40 MB opening the same design.
I called Cadence and complained and got a bunch of lip service. Eventually they scheduled a tech support session. That was useless. "Angela" (whose real name was probably Pasha or Pradeetha or something) who was using some sort of VoIP thing and some cheap GoToMeeting clone spent most of the time trying to tell me (when I could understand what she was saying between the thick Indian accent and glitchy VoIP quality) that I wasn't using the program correctly. "Why do you insist on opening 10 pages of schematics?" Uhhh, so I can see what's going on in the design.
For some of our embedded development we use Eclipse. One of the slowest and most bloated pieces of software on the planet. Again probably all written in Java. A single instance of Eclipse with less than a dozen files open uses nearly 1GB of memory. 1GB!!!!! for a glorified text editor.
/rant off
Update installed here. Computer doesn't feel any slower. Compilation times seem about the same.
Not a fan, and never was, of the Intel architecture. One of the better general purpose chips I used was the PowerPC. Shame that didn't make inroads.
/rant on
My biggest pet peeve is that modern software simply sucks. Many programmers are lazy and write slow and bloated code. Much of what I do today is not much different than what I did 20 years ago yet the programs are slower now than they were back then.
Case in point: schematic capture. I use a program called OrCad. The best version ever of OrCad is 9.02. This was released in 2000 and runs just fine on Windows 7. It performed well on a PC back in 2000. It's blindingly fast on a modern PC. Shortly after OrCad 9.02 was released the company was sold to Cadence and development moved overseas.
For some of my latest work I was forced to update to the latest version OrCad 17.x. It sucks. It doesn't do much more than 9.02 yet's it's painfully slow. The OrCad 9.02 installer is a couple hundred MB. 17.x is five CDs. Five!!! You can tell much of what was added was done in Java or something on top of the original code as the dialog boxes look different than the standard Windows dialog boxes. If you open more than several pages of schematics you basically can't do anything because it takes 10 seconds to simply change a resistor value due to the program using hundreds and hundreds of megabytes of memory. The old version only uses about 40 MB opening the same design.
I called Cadence and complained and got a bunch of lip service. Eventually they scheduled a tech support session. That was useless. "Angela" (whose real name was probably Pasha or Pradeetha or something) who was using some sort of VoIP thing and some cheap GoToMeeting clone spent most of the time trying to tell me (when I could understand what she was saying between the thick Indian accent and glitchy VoIP quality) that I wasn't using the program correctly. "Why do you insist on opening 10 pages of schematics?" Uhhh, so I can see what's going on in the design.
For some of our embedded development we use Eclipse. One of the slowest and most bloated pieces of software on the planet. Again probably all written in Java. A single instance of Eclipse with less than a dozen files open uses nearly 1GB of memory. 1GB!!!!! for a glorified text editor.
/rant off
Sometimes, poetry is vital. Just ask @CodePoet .
I've known some truly poetic programmers who produced code at lightning speed. This saved their employers much time and money.
There’s truth in that.I know what you mean, but...
by and large poetical code (or anything) takes time and inspiration. Time is money, and management doesn't want to wait around for their code monkeys to be inspired. They have timelines, contract requirements and sales quotas to meet. Waiting around for lightning to strike doesn't keep the lights on. All the code monkeys can't be that amazing.
Also occurs to me that there's a too-many-cooks situation involved. You don't have just one person working on something. It's a cast of thousands. The more people you add to a project of any kind, the less artistic it's gonna be.
That's why the software Cliff was talking about earlier was better in the earlier versions. There was probably only a few people working on it. Now it's a revolving door of people mucking about in the works and management adding requirements until it becomes the bloated POS that he described.
possibly a dumb question but i'll throw it out there anyhow: so if i'm running an older iMac on El Capitan am I 'forced' to update to newest OS to 'be safer'? I keep older OS because my computer runs fairly smoothly with my hardware peripherals and various software.
Will adding antivirus programs really buffer my defense with these specific attacks?