Apple under fire from U.S.-based class action suit over Meltdown and Spectre vulnerabiliti...

Posted:
in iPhone
Apple has become the target for another class action suit over the Meltdown and Spectre vulnerabilities found in Intel and ARM-based processors, as a suit filed in the California U.S. district court is going after the company for designing the A-series processors bearing these same defects.




The class action filing by legal firm Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz was filed on Jan. 8, at the U.S. District Court in San Jose, California. The filing lists Jacqueline Olson and Anthony Bartling as the plaintiffs, identified as owners of various iPhone models, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated as part of the class complaint.

It is alleged that all Apple Processors are defective because they were designed in a way that allows hackers and malicious programs potential access to highly secure information stored on iDevices. Noting the revelations of Meltdown and Spectre in Intel chips, the complaint acknowledges that a patch to protect from Meltdown is available, but will result in a reduction in processing speed for the chip.

For Spectre, the complaint asserts there is no complete firmware or software patch for the vulnerability at this time, adding that it is not precisely known if any patches or firmware to defeat it could do so without slowing the processor's speed. A long term solution to completely eliminate the risk of the Spectre issue may require the development of new hardware and/or architectures, states the filing.

Because of this, it is claimed that Apple has not been able to offer an effective repair to its customers, in that a patch affecting processor performance is not a legitimate solution, as is any patch that can fully eliminate the vulnerabilities altogether.

"Plaintiffs would not have purchased the iDevices had they known of the Security Vulnerabilities," write the complainants, offering no suggestions for what they would have purchased otherwise. "Or they would not have paid the prices they paid for the iDevices (in which the Apples Processors were a component) had they known that they would be subject to the Security Vulnerabilities as well as a slowdown in speed and thus decrease in quality and value."

The complaint also claims Apple has known about the defects since at least June of 2017. While Apple admitted the vulnerability affects its devices, and had released an iOS update to address Meltdown in December, the filing suggests Apple knew or should have known of the design defect much earlier and could have disclosed the design defect more promptly.

Due to knowing about the issue and continuing to sell affected devices without repairing or warning of the vulnerability beforehand, the suit alleges the iDevices it sold and distributed were not of the quality represented and were not fit for their ordinary purposes.

The filing insists that there are at least 100 members in the proposed class that have been affected by the issue, and the aggregated claims of the members will exceed the sum of $5 million if the suit proceeds and is found in its favor.

This is not the only class action suit Apple has become involved with relating to Meltdown and Spectre, as a separate class action suit taking on Apple, Intel, and ARM over the matter has recently been filed in Israel.

Intel has been the main subject of the lawsuits, both from those claiming it has affected consumers as well as those on behalf of shareholders.

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 40
    lewklewk Posts: 16member
    A bunch of greedy a-holes and ambulance chasers hoping to cash in big on something that isn't Apple's fault. LewK
    Spanading_returnsmike1mattinozGeorgeBMacmagman1979viclauyycbrian greenracerhomie3fuzzylobeswatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 40
    mike1mike1 Posts: 1,911member
    Literally, the scum of the earth.
    GeorgeBMacmagman1979racerhomie3watto_cobrabshankcornchip
  • Reply 3 of 40
    lewk said:
    A bunch of greedy a-holes and ambulance chasers hoping to cash in big on something that isn't Apple's fault. LewK
    Well said Lewk. This is fundamental flaw in all chip desing that use prediiton to speed up calculations. As Apple dont desing the core of the ARM archtecture or the Intel chips, I cannot see how they can be held responsible for this one. I hope the same type of people are going after all the other tech firms thart use CPUs based on ARM or x86 technology. Before anyone starts to say we should have stuck with motorola, pipeline prediction was the issue that cause Apple to move away in the first place as (if memory serves) the deeper and longer pipelines needed to get the performance increase, caused these chips to run too hot. Its the issue of staking unused calculations in pipelines (which are subsequently flushed) that is the flaw that these viruses exploit. However, from reading around the new iMac pro, the custom A series processor it contains does doe some sort of system oversite (especially during the boot). The new macbooks with touch bars all have a lighter verison of this chip, so maybe for those machines Apple could use these chips to protect against this exploitartion. For older macs, maybe if the user has an devicce then the A series chin thart could be used to provide some level of oversight?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 40
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 1,996member
    Why the law firms are becoming so stupid? You can not sue a company if you do not incur any damage. I think US is rapidly degrading into a country being controlled by stupid and irresponsible people, 
    magman1979teejay2012pichaelwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 40
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,459member
    Again, all parties to this suit must immediately cease use of any all all technology that is "vulnerable" to the asserted flaw.  They must do so both individually and also be banned from conducting commerce with anyone who also uses anything that may contain the asserted flaw.

    If you are going to make the claim of "harm", live up to your claim.
    watto_cobracornchip
  • Reply 6 of 40
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,162member
    For all those out there who think they will get a brand new iMac or iPhone free along with a check for $10,000.00 for their “trouble,” think again. These lawsuits will go down just like all the others have. The lawyers will get millions and you will get an iTunes gift card. For all you trolls out there hoping and praying, “Apple is finally going down,” think again. You’ll wind up looking like the Wicked Witch of the West. “I’ll get you my pretty, and your little dog too.” It ain’t gonna happen. In about two years we’ll read some blurb in the news about Apple settling, admitting no guilt, and you’l get your iTunes gift card for $25. Same goes for Intel and ARM. That’s just how class actions work. If you really have a grudge against Apple then hire a lawyer and file an individual suit. See how far you get with Apple’s legal team. 
    edited January 2018 magman1979watto_cobraairnerdmike1jony0cornchip
  • Reply 7 of 40
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 1,996member
    This country is really getting irresponsible. California just passed law allowing use of marijuanas. But can you sue the people of California if your daughter is killed in a car accident and the driver was using marijuanas? I don't think in a democracy you can sue the people. 
    racerhomie3watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 40
    dewmedewme Posts: 2,124member
    Re: "the complaint acknowledges that a patch to protect from Meltdown is available, but will result in a reduction in processing speed for the chip"

    The software workarounds needed to mitigate Spectre/Meltdown have absolutely zero impact on the processing speed of the chip. A 2.4 GHz A-series chip will still be running at the full 2.4 GHz. The only thing that is impacted are software applications that make heavy use of the affected microcode operations. This varies substantially between  software applications. So what these dirtbags are claiming is that the fixes put in place for the microprocessor bugs is resulting in a reduction in software application performance ... which begs the following questions:

    1) Which software applications are experiencing a slowdown?
    2) What is the percentage reduction for each software application?
    3) What is the guaranteed software application performance that they purchased with a service level agreement (SLA) contract from each software vendor?
    4) What remedies do each of the software vendors they have a SLA with provide?
    5) What is the amount of financial hardship imposed on the damaged parties from the affected software applications?

    I'm sure there are several more questions to be asked.

    My expectation is that the misfits filing this claim would answer these questions as follows:

    1) I don't know.
    2) I don't know. But the internet told me they might be 30% slower. My life is ruined.
    3) I have no SLAs or QoS contracts for any of my software. Or my hardware. What's an SLA?
    4) None.
    5) One million dollars, but I would settle for whatever three big bags of crack (or meth) cost these days.

    The bottom line is that a software application can suffer from a similar or greater magnitude of performance reductions as what these bug fixes impose simply from having the wrong compiler setting, using outdated libraries, inefficient design, any number of software development related maladies, the inclusion of exception handling logic that was previously omitted (intentionally or accidentily), etc. Are we going to start suing software vendors for any modifications performed to existing applications that result in a performance degradation of a software application? If so, every software vendor is universally screwed and should consider an entirely new line of work, like chasing ambulances, lobbying politicians, making YouTube videos, or initiating class action lawsuits against any entity that still has sufficient money to harvest - like law firms.
    icoco3kevin keewatto_cobrajony0Ewalkaceblu
  • Reply 9 of 40
    tzeshan said:
    This country is really getting irresponsible. California just passed law allowing use of marijuanas. But can you sue the people of California if your daughter is killed in a car accident and the driver was using marijuanas? I don't think in a democracy you can sue the people. 
    You can, in California, sue a driver under the influence (drugs, alcohol, meds) if they were driving and at fault. The same if your DL says glasses or contacts required. I don’t understand how being a democracy allows not being sued, explain please.
    singularitymuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 10 of 40
    lewk said:
    A bunch of greedy a-holes and ambulance chasers hoping to cash in big on something that isn't Apple's fault. LewK
    How can you say it's not apples fault, who designed the processor if it wasn't apple?
    edited January 2018 ivanh
  • Reply 11 of 40
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 4,064member
    They claim they wouldn't have bought the devices if they had known about the flaw. I doubt Apple would have put them on the market if they had known about the flaw.

    Unless someone comes up with some evidence that this flaw was discovered but knowingly ignored and kept out of the public eye (something that would probably put intel into a tailspin, not Apple), I don't think there's much that can be done save for mitigation and trying to get updates out for as many devices as possible.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 12 of 40
    saltyzip said:
    lewk said:
    A bunch of greedy a-holes and ambulance chasers hoping to cash in big on something that isn't Apple's fault. LewK
    How can you say it's not apples fault, who designed the processor if it wasn't apple?
    Even though Apple designed the chips, a lot of the baseline technologies and principles behind their chip was derived from the ARM group and Intel as part of microprocessor architecture that dates back to the early 90's.

    The flaws in question are from that point, and not developed as per any lack of insight or understanding on Apple's part; this is something shared by the entire IT world and all major CPU's made in the last 23 years!
    watto_cobrasmiffy31mike1muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 13 of 40
    So 100 individuals (the class) have been harmed by defects (Meltdown and Spectre) that have never been operational in the wild?

    If a judge doesn’t throw this out the system is broken.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 40
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,860member
    lewk said:
    A bunch of greedy a-holes and ambulance chasers hoping to cash in big on something that isn't Apple's fault. LewK
    Well technically it is Apples fault, they designed the processor!   However You really can't expect Apple to release details on a processor defect before they have a mitigation in place.   It is a pretty silly demand for this lawsuit.  

    More importantly the defect in the case of Apples I devices isn't a big deal.   The performance degradation isn't any worst than many of the OS upgrades we get ever few months.   Seriously most iPhones get slower with every new iOS release so this isn't out of the ordinary.    So yeah greed and lawyers proving themselves to be assholes.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 15 of 40
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,860member
    saltyzip said:
    lewk said:
    A bunch of greedy a-holes and ambulance chasers hoping to cash in big on something that isn't Apple's fault. LewK
    How can you say it's not apples fault, who designed the processor if it wasn't apple?
    Even though Apple designed the chips, a lot of the baseline technologies and principles behind their chip was derived from the ARM group and Intel as part of microprocessor architecture that dates back to the early 90's.

    The flaws in question are from that point, and not developed as per any lack of insight or understanding on Apple's part; this is something shared by the entire IT world and all major CPU's made in the last 23 years!
    Much baloney here.   First off Apple did design the chips, they license the instruction set from ARM.   There is very little if any ARM technology in the latest Apple chips, Apple basically rolled their own.   As for the microprocessor design I can't say where they got the basic design for the memory management subsystem, however it doesn't matter because one they implemented a faulty design and two there are industry examples of designs that don't have this meltdown issue (AMD).

    Well you will have a hard time selling that to a jury when the lawyers hold up an AMD chip that doens't suffer from Meltdown.  As for an understanding on Apples part the research into these defects has been on going, it isn't like the issues where just raised in December of 2017.

    In a nut shell people need to separate what Apple is responsible for from the idiocy of the lawyers in this case.   Apple designed a chip with a flaw, that is their responsibility.   Speaking of flaws almost every modern chip has a significant errata sheet that informs people of known issues with a processor, flaws are nothing new in these devices.   Again defects are the norm not something that almost never happens, unfortunately this issue has been blown out of proportion with respect to its impact on casual users.   The people that will really suffer are the data center users that have machines serving hundreds of users and thousands of processes.   I'm not even sure if the hit on iOS devices has been tested nor if it is significant for most users.
    gatorguybrian green
  • Reply 16 of 40
    I don't remember Apple, or any of the affected companies, stating that they guarantee a device to be free from a coding defect or vulnerability until the end of time. I must have missed that if they did. Nobody I know actually has come across the defect or vulnerability on their devices in the wlld (an anecdote, I'm aware). And a "potential" issue has has by definition caused no damage.

    Yet this law firm of Putz, Inept and Groveling goes forward anyhow. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 40
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 1,996member
    wizard69 said:
    saltyzip said:
    lewk said:
    A bunch of greedy a-holes and ambulance chasers hoping to cash in big on something that isn't Apple's fault. LewK
    How can you say it's not apples fault, who designed the processor if it wasn't apple?
    Even though Apple designed the chips, a lot of the baseline technologies and principles behind their chip was derived from the ARM group and Intel as part of microprocessor architecture that dates back to the early 90's.

    The flaws in question are from that point, and not developed as per any lack of insight or understanding on Apple's part; this is something shared by the entire IT world and all major CPU's made in the last 23 years!
    Much baloney here.   First off Apple did design the chips, they license the instruction set from ARM.   There is very little if any ARM technology in the latest Apple chips, Apple basically rolled their own.   As for the microprocessor design I can't say where they got the basic design for the memory management subsystem, however it doesn't matter because one they implemented a faulty design and two there are industry examples of designs that don't have this meltdown issue (AMD).

    Well you will have a hard time selling that to a jury when the lawyers hold up an AMD chip that doens't suffer from Meltdown.  As for an understanding on Apples part the research into these defects has been on going, it isn't like the issues where just raised in December of 2017.

    In a nut shell people need to separate what Apple is responsible for from the idiocy of the lawyers in this case.   Apple designed a chip with a flaw, that is their responsibility.   Speaking of flaws almost every modern chip has a significant errata sheet that informs people of known issues with a processor, flaws are nothing new in these devices.   Again defects are the norm not something that almost never happens, unfortunately this issue has been blown out of proportion with respect to its impact on casual users.   The people that will really suffer are the data center users that have machines serving hundreds of users and thousands of processes.   I'm not even sure if the hit on iOS devices has been tested nor if it is significant for most users.
    Baloney!  AMD admitted last week that its chip has this bug too.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 40
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 1,996member

    tzeshan said:
    This country is really getting irresponsible. California just passed law allowing use of marijuanas. But can you sue the people of California if your daughter is killed in a car accident and the driver was using marijuanas? I don't think in a democracy you can sue the people. 
    You can, in California, sue a driver under the influence (drugs, alcohol, meds) if they were driving and at fault. The same if your DL says glasses or contacts required. I don’t understand how being a democracy allows not being sued, explain please.
    If the law does not say using marijuanas is not allowed while driving then the people of California is guilty not just the driver. Because the law does not inform first time user the danger of using it. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 40
    dsddsd Posts: 184member

    VEHICLE CODE - VEH

    DIVISION 11. RULES OF THE ROAD [21000 - 23336]

      ( Division 11 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )
      

    CHAPTER 12. Public Offenses [23100 - 23249.50]

      ( Chapter 12 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )
      

    ARTICLE 2. Offenses Involving Alcohol and Drugs [23152 - 23229.1]
      ( Article 2 added by Stats. 1981, Ch. 940, Sec. 32. )

      
    23152.  (a) It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage to drive a vehicle.(b) It is unlawful for a person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.For purposes of this article and Section 34501.16, percent, by weight, of alcohol in a person’s blood is based upon grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.In any prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable presumption that the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the person had 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after the driving.(c) It is unlawful for a person who is addicted to the use of any drug to drive a vehicle. This subdivision shall not apply to a person who is participating in a narcotic treatment program approved pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 11875) of Chapter 1 of Part 3 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code.(d) It is unlawful for a person who has 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in Section 15210. In a prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable presumption that the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after the driving.(e) Commencing July 1, 2018, it shall be unlawful for a person who has 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a motor vehicle when a passenger for hire is a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the offense. For purposes of this subdivision, “passenger for hire” means a passenger for whom consideration is contributed or expected as a condition of carriage in the vehicle, whether directly or indirectly flowing to the owner, operator, agent, or any other person having an interest in the vehicle. In a prosecution under this subdivision, it is a rebuttable presumption that the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of driving the vehicle if the person had 0.04 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood at the time of the performance of a chemical test within three hours after the driving.(f) It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of any drug to drive a vehicle.(g) It is unlawful for a person who is under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug to drive a vehicle.(Amended by Stats. 2016, Ch. 765, Sec. 1. (AB 2687) Effective January 1, 2017.)
  • Reply 20 of 40
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,162member
    tzeshan said:

    tzeshan said:
    This country is really getting irresponsible. California just passed law allowing use of marijuanas. But can you sue the people of California if your daughter is killed in a car accident and the driver was using marijuanas? I don't think in a democracy you can sue the people. 
    You can, in California, sue a driver under the influence (drugs, alcohol, meds) if they were driving and at fault. The same if your DL says glasses or contacts required. I don’t understand how being a democracy allows not being sued, explain please.
    If the law does not say using marijuanas is not allowed while driving then the people of California is guilty not just the driver. Because the law does not inform first time user the danger of using it. 
    What are you talking about? The law legalizing the recreational use of marijuana doesn't need to say that. DUI laws just don't cover alcohol. It's illegal to drive being impaired by drugs or alcohol. 
    icoco3
Sign In or Register to comment.