Why can't Apple ever design an SOC without unfixable hardware flaws?

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Andy Burnelli

unread,
Jun 14, 2022, 8:37:00 PMJun 14
to
Did you hear about the unfixable hardware flaws in the M1 yet?
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=unfixable+A14+M1+design+flaws>

That the _same_ unpatchable flaws are in the A14 indicates how poor Apple
design team truly is (e.g., remember the power design that was so atrocious
from Apple that they had to secretly backdate release notes just so that
nobody would notice they secretly throttled phones with a new OS release!).

These new multiple unfixable hardware M1 & A14 flaws are yet more evidence
that Apple has never designed a best-in-class SOC in its entire history.

It's hard to design when all your money goes into advertising that you pay
for ARM technology and Qualcomm ICs and for TSMC to fab your flawed SOCs.
--
The iKooks will try to minimize the unfixable vulnerabilities; but the very
fact that they exist is the evidence that Apple can't design a
best-in-class SOC (and never has) because all the money goes into
advertising Apple fabs the Silicon (instead of TSMC who really fabs it).

Alan

unread,
Jun 14, 2022, 8:56:44 PMJun 14
to
On 2022-06-14 17:37, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Did you hear about the unfixable hardware flaws in the M1 yet?
> <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=unfixable+A14+M1+design+flaws>
>
> That the _same_ unpatchable flaws are in the A14 indicates how poor Apple
> design team truly is (e.g., remember the power design that was so atrocious
> from Apple that they had to secretly backdate release notes just so that
> nobody would notice they secretly throttled phones with a new OS release!).
>
> These new multiple unfixable hardware M1 & A14 flaws are yet more evidence
> that Apple has never designed a best-in-class SOC in its entire history.
>
> It's hard to design when all your money goes into advertising that you pay
> for ARM technology and Qualcomm ICs and for TSMC to fab your flawed SOCs.


Sorry, but you claim these AREN'T Apple's designs, remember?

Your Name

unread,
Jun 15, 2022, 12:23:58 AMJun 15
to
Besides which, it's not actually an Apple flaw. It's a flaw in *all* ARM chips.

Alan

unread,
Jun 15, 2022, 12:51:35 AMJun 15
to
I hadn't read that. Got a link?

Your Name

unread,
Jun 15, 2022, 1:30:36 AMJun 15
to
After the misleading attaention-grabbing headline, the real fact is
almost hidden away in the second to last paragraph at
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/06/10/new-pacman-flaw-in-apple-silicon-is-an-echo-of-spectre-and-meltdown>




Lewis

unread,
Jun 15, 2022, 10:08:41 AMJun 15
to
In message <t8bao9$4kl$1...@dont-email.me> Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:

> Sorry, but you claim these AREN'T Apple's designs, remember?

Look, the shitgibbon trollboi hadn’t posted in days and finally posts
one message and THERE YOU ARE, ENGAGING WITH HIM.

Stop it.

Please, every time you're going to reply to him imagine that little
chubby he gets and think again. Do you really want to be responsible for
the only sexual stimulation that obese naked troglodyte gets in his
life? Please, think of that image first.

--
Don't ride in anything with a Capissen-38 engine, they fall right out
of the sky

Lewis

unread,
Jun 15, 2022, 10:10:46 AMJun 15
to
You just have to read past the clickbait.

It also requires physical access AND requires having already bypassed
other security.

--
All people are different people

Alan Browne

unread,
Jun 15, 2022, 11:23:38 AMJun 15
to
On 2022-06-14 20:56, Alan wrote:
> Sorry, but you claim these AREN'T Apple's designs, remember?

Why answer it? Just encourages it to post blather again and again ...

--
"Mr Speaker, I withdraw my statement that half the cabinet are asses -
half the cabinet are not asses."
-Benjamin Disraeli

Bob Campbell

unread,
Jun 15, 2022, 4:43:23 PMJun 15
to
Now both of you guys have just ruined trollboi’s day. Well done.


Alan

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 12:33:50 AMJun 16
to
On 2022-06-15 07:08, Lewis wrote:
> In message <t8bao9$4kl$1...@dont-email.me> Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but you claim these AREN'T Apple's designs, remember?
>
> Look, the shitgibbon trollboi hadn’t posted in days and finally posts
> one message and THERE YOU ARE, ENGAGING WITH HIM.
>
> Stop it.
>
> Please, every time you're going to reply to him imagine that little
> chubby he gets and think again. Do you really want to be responsible for
> the only sexual stimulation that obese naked troglodyte gets in his
> life? Please, think of that image first.
>

Hey, here's a new idea for you:

Fuck off and let other's do as they prefer to do.

Andy Burnelli

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 9:49:51 AMJun 16
to
Alan Browne wrote:

> Why answer it? Just encourages it to post blather again and again ...

*And yet the fact remains the M1 has _multiple_ unpatchable hardware flaws.*

Given every Axx CPU from Apple contains unpatchable hardware flaws, and
given even the so-called "secure enclave" contains unpatchable flaws...

The _adult_ question remains apropos:
Q: Has Apple ever (in its entire history!) designed a best-in-class SOC?
--
If it contains any unpatchable hardware flaws, it's _not_ best in class.

Andy Burnelli

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 9:50:37 AMJun 16
to
Lewis wrote:

>>> Besides which, it's not actually an Apple flaw. It's a flaw in *all* ARM
>>> chips.
>
>> I hadn't read that. Got a link?
>
> You just have to read past the clickbait.
>
> It also requires physical access AND requires having already bypassed
> other security.

*If it contains any unpatchable hardware flaws, it's _not_ best in class.*

The logical point is an M1 with _multiple_ known unpatchable hardware flaws
is _not_ best in class by any stretch of the best-in-class definition.

However, I have to give YourName "some" credit as _one_ of the flaws is
also in other designs, but notice I'm informing you iKooks of _two_
unpatchable flaws... and the fact you whooshed on that is typical of you
iKooks.

What's typical of you low-IQ no-education Apple-adoring iKoos is you only
read the clickbait without delving deeper into the cause of the flaws.

The fact Lewis is _desperate_ to minimize one (but he whooshed on the
other) is also rather typical of you low-education low-IQ iKooks.

BTW, I _knew_ you iKooks would miss the point which isn't the severity of
the unpatchable hardware flaws, but the certainty of them in Apple devices.

Why is it certain that all Apple SOC's have built-in hardware flaws?

Because Apple likely spends ten to fifty times the money to advertise that
they "made" the design than Apple spends in actually making the design.

Apple bought almost everything from someone else, which is partly why Apple
has never in its entire history ever designed a best-in-class SOC.

The proof that Apple can't design a best-in-class SOC is simply in knowing
about the unpatchable hardware flaws in _every_ Apple designed SOC.

And no, an M1 with _multiple_ known unpatchable hardware flaws is _not_
best in class by any stretch of the definition of what best in class means.

Alan

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 11:53:54 AMJun 16
to
On 2022-06-16 06:50, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Why answer it?  Just encourages it to post blather again and again ...
>
> *And yet the fact remains the M1 has _multiple_ unpatchable hardware
> flaws.*
>
> Given every Axx CPU from Apple contains unpatchable hardware flaws, and
> given even the so-called "secure enclave" contains unpatchable flaws...
>
> The _adult_ question remains apropos:
> Q: Has Apple ever (in its entire history!) designed a best-in-class SOC?

You want to have it both ways:

"Apple didn't design the A or M series processors"

and

"Apple is responsible for the flaws".

Alan

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 1:18:08 PMJun 16
to
On 2022-06-16 06:50, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Lewis wrote:
>
>>>> Besides which, it's not actually an Apple flaw. It's a flaw in *all*
>>>> ARM chips.
>>
>>> I hadn't read that. Got a link?
>>
>> You just have to read past the clickbait.
>>
>> It also requires physical access AND requires having already bypassed
>> other security.
>
> *If it contains any unpatchable hardware flaws, it's _not_ best in class.*
>
> The logical point is an M1 with _multiple_ known unpatchable hardware flaws
> is _not_ best in class by any stretch of the best-in-class definition.

And now you extend your lie?

"Multiple" hardware flaws, Arlen?

And you've previously insisted that Apple didn't design their Apple
Silicon processors...

...so how is this on Apple anyway?

Andy Burnelli

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 4:19:42 PMJun 16
to
Bob Campbell wrote:

>>> Sorry, but you claim these AREN'T Apple's designs, remember?
>>
>> Besides which, it's not actually an Apple flaw. It's a flaw in *all* ARM chips.
>>
>
> Now both of you guys have just ruined trollboi's day. Well done.

Notice the iKooks call all facts about Apple, trolls.
Why?

Because they _hate_ all facts about Apple products.
That's why.

While the iKooks are _desperate_ to ignore all facts about Apple that they
hate, it's interesting how they hate me simply for _telling_ them the
facts.
a. What's no longer surprising is the iKooks _hate_ facts about Apple.
b. Worse, the iKooks are _ignorant_ about those facts about Apple.
c. Worse still, the iKooks brazenly _deny_ all facts about Apple they hate.
Which loops us back to iKooks basically hate all facts about Apple.

Meanwhile, the _adult_ point isn't that these M1 chips are designed with
_multiple_ unfixable security flaws - but that the M1 (and likely the M2)
are NOT best-in-class SOCs given that those flaws exist in them (AFAIK).

Note: The A14 is also apparently included in at least some of these flaws.

What's interesting is always how ignorant the iKooks are of what Apple
actually does, where they only know what Apple advertises that it does.

It ceases to be shocking how little iKooks know of Apple products because I
have since realized all the iKooks own a low IQ, no education, and, most
important of all, all iKooks have (understandably) very low self esteem.

Worse, the entire world (except, interestingly, the iKooks) knows about
these multiple hardware flaws in the M1 (and likely in the M2), which means
that bad actors are likely actively hacking away to exploit these
unpatchable flaws just like they did when Apple's secure enclave chip was
found to be irreparably flawed.

If you're _not_ an iKook, then click on this link for the basic details:

*MIT researchers uncover unpatchable flaw in Apple M1 chips*
<https://techcrunch.com/2022/06/10/apple-m1-unpatchable-flaw/>

1. In 2021 an unfixable flaw was found in the Apple M1 design.
2. In 2022 another (_different_) unfixable flaw was found it the M1.
3. The M2 appears to use the same underlying design (read the article).
--
The point isn't that there are multiple unfixable flaws in the M1 and
likely in the M2 but that these flaws prove they're not best-in-class SOCs.

Andy Burnelli

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 4:38:11 PMJun 16
to
Your Name wrote:

> After the misleading attaention-grabbing headline, the real fact is
> almost hidden away in the second to last paragraph at
> <https://appleinsider.com/articles/22/06/10/new-pacman-flaw-in-apple-silicon-is-an-echo-of-spectre-and-meltdown>

Notice how ignorant the iKooks are that there are _multiple_ (*different!*)
unpatchable flaws we've been talking about since the start of this thread.

They think there's just one flaw and that it only affects one Apple SOC.
How wrong they (always) are indeed!

For the few _adults_ on this newsgroup, what would be a useful set of facts
would be to list which Apple chips are affected by these _multiple_ flaws.
a. PAC (pointer authentication codes)
b. M1racles CVE-2021-30747
At least one of which gives the attacker full control of the machine
under exploitable circumstances (which is why they shouldn't be there).

An adult question is to ask which Apple SOCs are affected by these flaws:
1. We know the M1 has at least _two_ different unpatchable hardware flaws.
2. We are told the PAC flaws are likely also in the M1 Pro and M1 Max.
3. We also know the A14 is affected by at least this most recent H/W flaw.
4. And we know the M2 uses a "similar" (if not the same) PAC flow design.

What other Apple SOCs are affected by these _multiple_ hardware flaws?
Specifically, does anyone know about the vaunted A15 hardware design?

Note that the iKooks are always shockingly completely ignorant.
A. They're unaware of the hardware flaws found about a year ago
B. And they're ignorant of the different new hardware flaws found now.

Yet the fact-based question deserves an answer so that we know which Apple
SOCs are affected by these _multiple_ (different!) unpatchable hardware
flaws.

Only an actual adult can answer that fact-based question correctly.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information
which, since the data pertains to facts about Apple, iKooks simply hate.

Alan

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 4:54:41 PMJun 16
to
On 2022-06-16 13:20, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Bob Campbell wrote:
>
>>>> Sorry, but you claim these AREN'T Apple's designs, remember?
>>>
>>> Besides which, it's not actually an Apple flaw. It's a flaw in *all*
>>> ARM chips.
>>>
>>
>> Now both of you guys have just ruined trollboi's day.   Well done.
>
> Notice the iKooks call all facts about Apple, trolls.
> Why?
>
> Because they _hate_ all facts about Apple products.
> That's why.
>
> While the iKooks are _desperate_ to ignore all facts about Apple that they
> hate, it's interesting how they hate me simply for _telling_ them the
> facts.
> a. What's no longer surprising is the iKooks _hate_ facts about Apple.
> b. Worse, the iKooks are _ignorant_ about those facts about Apple.
> c. Worse still, the iKooks brazenly _deny_ all facts about Apple they hate.
> Which loops us back to iKooks basically hate all facts about Apple.
>
> Meanwhile, the _adult_ point isn't that these M1 chips are designed with
> _multiple_ unfixable security flaws - but that the M1 (and likely the M2)
> are NOT best-in-class SOCs given that those flaws exist in them (AFAIK).

But you keep insisting they're not designed by Apple...

...but that somehow any negative thing is Apple's fault.

Care to explain?

>
> Note: The A14 is also apparently included in at least some of these flaws.

Same point.

>
> What's interesting is always how ignorant the iKooks are of what Apple
> actually does, where they only know what Apple advertises that it does.
>
> It ceases to be shocking how little iKooks know of Apple products because I
> have since realized all the iKooks own a low IQ, no education, and, most
> important of all, all iKooks have (understandably) very low self esteem.
>
> Worse, the entire world (except, interestingly, the iKooks) knows about
> these multiple hardware flaws in the M1 (and likely in the M2), which means
> that bad actors are likely actively hacking away to exploit these
> unpatchable flaws just like they did when Apple's secure enclave chip was
> found to be irreparably flawed.
>
> If you're _not_ an iKook, then click on this link for the basic details:
>
> *MIT researchers uncover unpatchable flaw in Apple M1 chips*
> <https://techcrunch.com/2022/06/10/apple-m1-unpatchable-flaw/>
>
> 1. In 2021 an unfixable flaw was found in the Apple M1 design.

Which you claim wasn't designed by Apple.

> 2. In 2022 another (_different_) unfixable flaw was found it the M1.

Which you claim wasn't designed by Apple.

> 3. The M2 appears to use the same underlying design (read the article).

Indeed.

That says the flaw is in the ISA that Apple is using...

...and hence the flaws are in all chips that use the ARM ISA.

Alan

unread,
Jun 16, 2022, 5:37:51 PMJun 16
to
According you, there are not "Apple SOCs" and that there is only marketing.

Your Name

unread,
Jun 22, 2022, 1:44:40 AMJun 22
to
On 2022-06-16 21:37:48 +0000, Alan said:
> On 2022-06-16 13:38, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> Your Name wrote:
>>>
>>> After the misleading attention-grabbing headline, the real fact is
Besides which *all* of the flaws (Spectre, Meltdown, Pacman, etc.)
found so far have been flaws that are found in *all* ARM CPUs.
Absolutely none of them are specific to Apple's chips.

The problem is the useless media tends to use Apple as an
attention-grabbing headline which is all that idiot bothers to read
because he can't actually read more than a few words.

Andy Burnelli

unread,
Jun 24, 2022, 12:47:43 AMJun 24
to
Your Name wrote:

> Besides which *all* of the flaws (Spectre, Meltdown, Pacman, etc.)
> found so far have been flaws that are found in *all* ARM CPUs.
> Absolutely none of them are specific to Apple's chips.

Remember the subject line above.
Understand that Apple struts around like a peacock advertising how "great"
they are at design... so... yes... the fact Apple _sucks_ at design _is_ a
big deal.

You just hate that fact.
And you were ignorant of that fact too.

It's who you are.
And what you'll always be.

However, you bring up a possibly good point that maybe other manufacturers
have the same flaws - but I'm not so sure _both_ unpatchable flaws are in
all ARM chips - but they're certainly in the Apple well-advertised M1/M2
SOCs.

Which means Apple _sucks_ at SOC design.

The whole point is that Apple is so incompetent at design that they have
never made any SOC that does _not_ have unpatchable hardware flaws.

Look at the subject line please.
That's what this thread is about.

Apple has _never_ made a best-in-class SOC, and no, if both the M1 and M2
have known unpatchable hardware flaws, then they're just crappy designs.

Apple spends likely ten to a hundred times more in _advertising_ that they
fab'd the chips (which is a bold-faced lie) than in actual chip design.

> The problem is the useless media tends to use Apple as an
> attention-grabbing headline which is all that idiot bothers to read
> because he can't actually read more than a few words.

If you strutted around like Apple does spending hundreds of millions if not
billions of dollars a year touting how "great" you are at design...

And if _every_ single one of your chips had hardware flaws in them...
literally proving that Apple _sucks_ at chip design...

Then it's _correct_ for the media to call out Apple on their bullshit.
You just were _ignorant_ of the facts and you _hate_ these facts.

That's all there is to you.
a. You're ignorant of the facts.
b. When someone tells you the facts, you deny them.

Why?
I don't know why.

I suspect you hate all facts about Apple because what Apple does is never
what Apple told you it was.
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to disseminate useful information.

Alan

unread,
Jun 24, 2022, 2:42:30 AMJun 24
to
On 2022-06-23 21:48, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Your Name wrote:
>
>> Besides which *all* of the flaws (Spectre, Meltdown, Pacman, etc.)
>> found so far have been flaws that are found in *all* ARM CPUs.
>> Absolutely none of them are specific to Apple's chips.
>
> Remember the subject line above.
> Understand that Apple struts around like a peacock advertising how "great"
> they are at design... so... yes... the fact Apple _sucks_ at design _is_ a
> big deal.

But you have insisted that Apple DIDN'T design their chips, Arlen.

>
> You just hate that fact.
> And you were ignorant of that fact too.
>
> It's who you are.
> And what you'll always be.
>
> However, you bring up a possibly good point that maybe other manufacturers
> have the same flaws - but I'm not so sure _both_ unpatchable flaws are in
> all ARM chips - but they're certainly in the Apple well-advertised M1/M2
> SOCs.

And you don't want to even look, do you?

>
> Which means Apple _sucks_ at SOC design.

But you have insisted that Apple DIDN'T design their chips, Arlen.

> The whole point is that Apple is so incompetent at design that they have
> never made any SOC that does _not_ have unpatchable hardware flaws.

But you have insisted that Apple DIDN'T design their chips, Arlen.

> Look at the subject line please. That's what this thread is about.

But you have insisted that Apple DIDN'T design their chips, Arlen.

> Apple has _never_ made a best-in-class SOC, and no, if both the M1 and M2
> have known unpatchable hardware flaws, then they're just crappy designs.

But you have insisted that Apple DIDN'T design their chips, Arlen.

> Apple spends likely ten to a hundred times more in _advertising_ that they
> fab'd the chips (which is a bold-faced lie) than in actual chip design.

But you have insisted that Apple DIDN'T design their chips, Arlen.

And Apple has never claimed even once that they actually manufacture the
chips.

>> The problem is the useless media tends to use Apple as an
>> attention-grabbing headline which is all that idiot bothers to read
>> because he can't actually read more than a few words.
>
> If you strutted around like Apple does spending hundreds of millions if not
> billions of dollars a year touting how "great" you are at design...
> And if _every_ single one of your chips had hardware flaws in them...
> literally proving that Apple _sucks_ at chip design...
> Then it's _correct_ for the media to call out Apple on their bullshit.
> You just were _ignorant_ of the facts and you _hate_ these facts.

But you have insisted that Apple DIDN'T design their chips, Arlen.

> That's all there is to you.
> a. You're ignorant of the facts.
> b. When someone tells you the facts, you deny them.
>
> Why?
> I don't know why.
>
> I suspect you hate all facts about Apple because what Apple does is never
> what Apple told you it was.

Did Apple design these chips? Yes or no.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages