Major Intel CPU vulnerability
-
I haven't really looked into it because of how old the server.
But I have very old PowerEdge 2950 server that I use for lab use only and for some reason I have to turn off pti to boot into Linux kernel 4.14.11 on Fedora 27 VM on Hyper-V 2012 R2. It either loop back to the boot screen or only show a cursor after selecting the kernel.
-
-
-
Ars Technica agrees that Intel's CEO knew before he sold.
-
@mlnews said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
Ars Technica agrees that Intel's CEO knew before he sold.
As long as his Broker executed this plan without MNPI he's in the clear.
10b5-1 doesn't actually require public disclosure but it does help avoid PR problems like this.As a result of his stock sale, Krzanich received more than $39 million. Intel stock, as of today, is trading at roughly the same price as Krzanich sold stock at, so he did not yield any significant gain from selling before the vulnerability was announced
SEC officials could still see the maneuver as a trade based on insider information—especially if there was no other material reason for Krzanich to sell the stock.
He's following a set pattern on his trades, and no stockholders short of day traders were hurt by this. The SEC really isn't going to bother with this unless there is some sort of smoking gun found in the way of text messages telling his broker "SELL IT ALL NOW BAD SHIT GOING DOWN".
-
@storageninja said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
@mlnews said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
Ars Technica agrees that Intel's CEO knew before he sold.
As long as his Broker executed this plan without MNPI he's in the clear.
10b5-1 doesn't actually require public disclosure but it does help avoid PR problems like this.As a result of his stock sale, Krzanich received more than $39 million. Intel stock, as of today, is trading at roughly the same price as Krzanich sold stock at, so he did not yield any significant gain from selling before the vulnerability was announced
SEC officials could still see the maneuver as a trade based on insider information—especially if there was no other material reason for Krzanich to sell the stock.
He's following a set pattern on his trades, and no stockholders short of day traders were hurt by this. The SEC really isn't going to bother with this unless there is some sort of smoking gun found in the way of text messages telling his broker "SELL IT ALL NOW BAD SHIT GOING DOWN".
He's NOT following a set pattern, that was the point of one of the articles. The pattern was established only after he knew. But he's known for so long, there has been time to set a pattern.
The one article's point was that the idea that he was following a pattern was a myth that someone injected to try to cover up that this was a completely new pattern that exists entirely as a continuing form of insider trading.
He entire pattern IS him telling his broker that shit was going down and to bail on the company.
-
@storageninja said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
@mlnews said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
Ars Technica agrees that Intel's CEO knew before he sold.
As long as his Broker executed this plan without MNPI he's in the clear.
10b5-1 doesn't actually require public disclosure but it does help avoid PR problems like this.As a result of his stock sale, Krzanich received more than $39 million. Intel stock, as of today, is trading at roughly the same price as Krzanich sold stock at, so he did not yield any significant gain from selling before the vulnerability was announced
SEC officials could still see the maneuver as a trade based on insider information—especially if there was no other material reason for Krzanich to sell the stock.
He's following a set pattern on his trades, and no stockholders short of day traders were hurt by this. The SEC really isn't going to bother with this unless there is some sort of smoking gun found in the way of text messages telling his broker "SELL IT ALL NOW BAD SHIT GOING DOWN".
When you can click a button and make a cool $39 million, you can easily avoid the scrutiny of the SEC or anyone else. Money = power, power = easy to avoid legal entanglements.
-
@rojoloco said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
@storageninja said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
@mlnews said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
Ars Technica agrees that Intel's CEO knew before he sold.
As long as his Broker executed this plan without MNPI he's in the clear.
10b5-1 doesn't actually require public disclosure but it does help avoid PR problems like this.As a result of his stock sale, Krzanich received more than $39 million. Intel stock, as of today, is trading at roughly the same price as Krzanich sold stock at, so he did not yield any significant gain from selling before the vulnerability was announced
SEC officials could still see the maneuver as a trade based on insider information—especially if there was no other material reason for Krzanich to sell the stock.
He's following a set pattern on his trades, and no stockholders short of day traders were hurt by this. The SEC really isn't going to bother with this unless there is some sort of smoking gun found in the way of text messages telling his broker "SELL IT ALL NOW BAD SHIT GOING DOWN".
When you can click a button and make a cool $39 million, you can easily avoid the scrutiny of the SEC or anyone else. Money = power, power = easy to avoid legal entanglements.
Bloomberg is pointing out that this was NOT following his established pattern: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-08/intel-ceo-krzanich-s-stock-sales-seen-warranting-sec-examination
-
-
Other investors are starting to be upset...
-
@scottalanmiller said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
@rojoloco said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
@storageninja said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
@mlnews said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
Ars Technica agrees that Intel's CEO knew before he sold.
As long as his Broker executed this plan without MNPI he's in the clear.
10b5-1 doesn't actually require public disclosure but it does help avoid PR problems like this.As a result of his stock sale, Krzanich received more than $39 million. Intel stock, as of today, is trading at roughly the same price as Krzanich sold stock at, so he did not yield any significant gain from selling before the vulnerability was announced
SEC officials could still see the maneuver as a trade based on insider information—especially if there was no other material reason for Krzanich to sell the stock.
He's following a set pattern on his trades, and no stockholders short of day traders were hurt by this. The SEC really isn't going to bother with this unless there is some sort of smoking gun found in the way of text messages telling his broker "SELL IT ALL NOW BAD SHIT GOING DOWN".
When you can click a button and make a cool $39 million, you can easily avoid the scrutiny of the SEC or anyone else. Money = power, power = easy to avoid legal entanglements.
Bloomberg is pointing out that this was NOT following his established pattern: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-08/intel-ceo-krzanich-s-stock-sales-seen-warranting-sec-examination
I'm not saying he did it by the books... quite the opposite. But when you have Intel CEO money and power, you don't get busted for insider trading because you can easily buy your way out of trouble.
-
-
Intel's investors are losing share value on insider accusations alone. Pretty sure people losing money here are going to be pressuring the SEC to look into how this could have happened.
-
@storageninja said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
...and no stockholders short of day traders were hurt by this.
Everyone who bought Intel stock or currently holds it was hurt. So other than "all of them", yeah, no one was hurt.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
Intel's investors are losing share value on insider accusations alone. Pretty sure people losing money here are going to be pressuring the SEC to look into how this could have happened.
So maybe it becomes a PR night are for Intel, but the actual guilty party will walk away scot free.
-
@rojoloco said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
@scottalanmiller said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
Intel's investors are losing share value on insider accusations alone. Pretty sure people losing money here are going to be pressuring the SEC to look into how this could have happened.
So maybe it becomes a PR night are for Intel, but the actual guilty party will walk away scot free.
Easily. Although Intel is guilty, too. They should have not hired a crook, monitored the crook, fired the crook, etc. The board has a responsibility here, too.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
@rojoloco said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
@storageninja said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
@mlnews said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
Ars Technica agrees that Intel's CEO knew before he sold.
As long as his Broker executed this plan without MNPI he's in the clear.
10b5-1 doesn't actually require public disclosure but it does help avoid PR problems like this.As a result of his stock sale, Krzanich received more than $39 million. Intel stock, as of today, is trading at roughly the same price as Krzanich sold stock at, so he did not yield any significant gain from selling before the vulnerability was announced
SEC officials could still see the maneuver as a trade based on insider information—especially if there was no other material reason for Krzanich to sell the stock.
He's following a set pattern on his trades, and no stockholders short of day traders were hurt by this. The SEC really isn't going to bother with this unless there is some sort of smoking gun found in the way of text messages telling his broker "SELL IT ALL NOW BAD SHIT GOING DOWN".
When you can click a button and make a cool $39 million, you can easily avoid the scrutiny of the SEC or anyone else. Money = power, power = easy to avoid legal entanglements.
Bloomberg is pointing out that this was NOT following his established pattern: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-08/intel-ceo-krzanich-s-stock-sales-seen-warranting-sec-examination
RTFA
Intel says Krzanich’s sales were part of a pre-arranged stock plan with an automated schedule, but some securities lawyers say the larger-than-usual transaction will probably be examined by the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission
It's a clickbait headline. They will look into it, but if it was part of an automated schedule they will quickly close their case.
-
@rojoloco said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
So maybe it becomes a PR night are for Intel, but the actual guilty party will walk away scot free.
If he had an automated trading plan that his broker was trading on his behalf under specific instructions and the broker was not made aware to change said plan between the time he got the bad news and the sale he's not guilty.
Then again, the internet court is more fun.
Youtube Video -
@storageninja said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
If he had an automated trading plan that his broker was trading on his behalf under specific instructions and the broker was not made aware to change said plan between the time he got the bad news and the sale he's not guilty.
That's a significant misunderstanding of SEC law. Just because you don't tell a broker and turn a crime into a plan doesn't change guilt or have anything to do with it.
That's like saying that it's not a crime to rob a bank, as long as you planned ahead and didn't tell the get away driver.
-
@storageninja said in Major Intel CPU vulnerability:
Intel says Krzanich’s sales were part of a pre-arranged stock plan with an automated schedule, but some securities lawyers say the larger-than-usual transaction will probably be examined by the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission
Given that we already know that the plan came AFTER it was already insider trading, we all know that this statement implies Intel's involvement in the guilt, not a lack of that guilt. I'm not sure how you see planning and automation as ways to remove the issue of insider trading. Building a robot to murder someone at a set time in the future is still murder.
What we know at this point...
- The "plan" is just misdirection to confuse those not looking at the timeline. The planning and scheduling happened AFTER it was already insider trading.
- The release of the information to the public was coordinated so that it fell after the plan was actioned.
- The pattern of sales was violated in order to make these sales.
So any claims that a plan, schedule, or pattern somehow excuse the insider trading are just fanciful fairly land talk. If this is insider trading or not is not affected by those. It has nothing to do with it. But they sounds reasonable to people not doing the research. But bottom line, you can't use any of these things or the quotes of his own employees to say he's not guilty. None of those things are even relevant.
