What's more terrifying than an EPYC vulnerability? Your entire Amazon.com history!

Subject: General Tech | May 28, 2018 - 01:24 PM |
Tagged: scary, amazon

For some unknowable reason, Ars Technica determined a way for people to request their entire Amazon.com purchase history, since the creation of the account.  The link provided doesn't seem to be compatible with other Amazon sites, such as Amazon.ca which may be a blessing for many readers.  As part of the project the Ars staff reminisce about some of their past purchases and what Amazon has meant to them. 

Are you willing to see what you have been doing all these years?  If so, click here.

View Full Size

"As Americans who've spent many years ordering things off the Internet, we at Ars all have Amazon shopping histories in common, but that doesn't mean we all use the site the same—or feel the same about Amazon's reach, quite frankly."

Here is some more Tech News from around the web:

Tech Talk

Source: Ars Technica

Video News

May 28, 2018 | 03:34 PM - Posted by ReallyTheyAreScaredOfEpycCompetition (not verified)

Apparently that Epyc encryption vulnerability requires adminstrative access to install a not so safe(malicious) hypervisor on the hardware and that's NOT good for any computing system!

So this attack involves a rogue host-level administrator modifying the hypervisor/host system and How pawned is any system if there is already adminstrative access in the first place.

Oh Looky here(1) there is some connetions allrighty!

"Intel, Fraunhofer cooperate in embedded systems"


May 29, 2018 | 02:09 PM - Posted by PsyDShrink (not verified)

Lol, who can't resist a juicy conspiracy theory, right?
That doesn't mean i believe you're being a conspiracy nut. A seasoned conspiracy theorist would surely not forget to "expose" the tacit secretive connection between IESE (the news blurb you referred to) and AISEC (who did report the vulnerablity), no?

May 29, 2018 | 02:10 PM - Posted by PsyDShrink (not verified)

...also, that news blurb link you provided is from 2011. Just saying... o.O

May 28, 2018 | 07:42 PM - Posted by FallenBytes

Wow, that's a lot less than I thought I would have spent over the last 5 years. Also just discovered my current SSD was my very first purchase; a regular old 250GB Samsung 840 (non-EVO) for $155. I guess it's time for a new C: drive?

May 30, 2018 | 04:58 AM - Posted by Amazonistrash (not verified)

Anyone who uses Amazon is an idiot. Theyre like Walmart: unethical dumpers of Chinese made trash that make people poor, then once theyre too poor to shop anywhere else, they complain that theyre poor.

May 30, 2018 | 06:49 PM - Posted by Johan Steyn (not verified)

That title? Really? So please point me to what EPYC has to do with this!

Since all the dark cloud hanging over PCPer and Intel collaboration, you go and choose such a title. Do you think this was wise? Do you really want this?

And to top it all, this so called vulnerability is not even news worthy. Help me understand why you did this please.

May 30, 2018 | 07:24 PM - Posted by Jeremy Hellstrom

For exactly the reasons you listed in that last sentence? 

Instead of repeating the FUD about that supposed vulnerability I posted something interesting; thanks for trying though.

For that matter, I am still waiting on those sweet Intel cheques as well ... should I assume you are stealing them as you have proof they are sending them?

May 31, 2018 | 01:52 PM - Posted by Johan Steyn (not verified)

Thanks for answering my post, I actually do appreciate it. I was not saying that you were receiving money from Intel, only that the title might give credence to such ideas, therefore I have asked whether the title is a wise choice, especially since it was shown that PCPer did have involvement with Intel.

So, My point is not that you meant this in a bad way, but that it might be perceived as such. I hope this will clear up what I meant. Sorry for any inconvenience caused.

I also did misunderstand your intent and am sorry for that as well.

May 31, 2018 | 01:58 PM - Posted by Jeremy Hellstrom

Your first sentence contradicts itself; stating we aren't getting paid off by Intel immediately followed by again accusing us of that just doesn't work. 

Criticism and questions are welcome, conspiracy theories will be mocked unless they are really, really well written.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.