[tjoff]

I agree and that is exactly what I meant.

However these circumstances can also be a matter of safety. For instance, an easily exploitable SSH vulnerability can incur serious damage to lots of institutions.

Further, the embargo isn't/shouldn't be about protecting Intel - it's about protecting everyone that uses Intel CPUs (sometimes those goals are aligned, sometimes not). How you go about that is one thing and if you intentionally disrespect that embargo (whether you were in on it or not) means that the assumptions and motivations for the embargo are invalidated and the consequences could be huge.

Now you don't necessarily have to agree with the embargo but if you don't know the consequences (in this case it looks like it was likely to be known) you take it up on yourself that you (with most likely very limited information) can identify the consequences of doing such a disclosure.

It's the same problem of doing a irresponsible disclosure of a major vulnerability. Most do consider that to be a dick move.