Here we are - 3600 which was still under manufacture 2-3 years ago are not get patched. Shame on you AMD, if it is true.

  • Victor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’m guessing it’s a balance between old products, effort, severity, etc. As we’ve learned, this is only an issue for an already infected system. 🤷‍♂️

      • Auli@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Just because a store is still selling their stock doesn’t mean AND is still making them and selling them.

      • Victor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        7 months ago

        Ryzen 3000 series CPUs are still sold as new

        Ah, that changes things. Not great. But still,

        uninfected systems will intentionally be left vulnerable

        what I meant was that apparently only compromised systems are vulnerable to this defect.

          • Victor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            What I meant was exactly that, which you corroborated as correct. You’d first have to already compromise these systems, in order to be able to exploit this vulnerability. That’s as I understood it. It’s that correct?

            Gosh, it’s not easy getting my point across here today, I’m sorry.

            All I’m saying is that I don’t think AMD is doing this to us, on purpose. I think it’s just happened, and they’re not handling it very well, even though it’s somewhat understandable. At least to me. 🤷‍♂️

            But then again, I have no reason to be attacked or have my system compromised, so my situation is better than others’, perhaps.

              • Victor@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                they could just as well choose to help them.

                I think that’s what I have a hard time believing. If they could “just as well” help, it is my belief that they also would. Because I don’t think they’re morons. I think they know this hurts their reputation. There has to be some obstacle, be it financial or lack of man power or… something. That is my belief.

                Don’t you (all) think that sounds more likely than them just leaving their customers in the dark for no other reason than not having to do work?

                  • Victor@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    I mean… 🤷‍♂️ The analysis is made, decision made. I probably have an affected system but… What’s the real risk for private end users? Should I really be so concerned?