Reply to post: Re: Fit for what purpose?

Intel adopts Orwellian irony with call for fast Meltdown-Spectre action after slow patch delivery

RandSec

Re: Fit for what purpose?

I think this IS a problem of design: It demonstrates that our current concepts of design do not work at the complexity levels we want to use. This idea of "proving a negative" is the statement that the system is too big to traverse, as most are. But little systems and scalable systems can be investigated very strongly.

It may not be practical, but it would be heartening to see a build based on small modules which can be exhaustively tested to do exactly what they should and nothing else. When we get into systems with massive state, we need designs we can scale down and test. Yes, that is not the same, but it is close.

The problem is whether such tested systems can be built in hardware. We know they can be built, to some extent, in software, although very rarely are, presumably because that is not a goal, and is not taught. In this case testing might have caught a hint of the problem, only to be dismissed so the business could benefit. That benefit is what society needs to take back.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon