5 ms·
> But Heartbleed was the first one Perhaps with a logo - I never really pay much attention to logos - but it wasn't the first to have an accessible name. Just
by laumars 11y ago
> But Heartbleed was the first one
Perhaps with a logo - I never really pay much attention to logos - but it wasn't the first to have an accessible name. Just off the top of my head I can name 3 SSL vulnerabilities that predated Heartbleed: BEAST, CRIME, BREACH.
Personally I can't see how having a logo changes much in terms of press coverage since radio and printed newspapers tend not to publish the logos, online publications have a large resource of stock images they can use (eg Getty) and the TV would likely want video footage anyway.
I think the nature of the bug with Heartbleed also played an important factor in it's coverage. It was quite a simple exploit to explain to the lay-person (albeit imprecisely) when compared to BEAST, CRIME, BREACH, POODLE, etc which require a much greater understanding of SSL/TLS. We do see other unbranded exploits are reported by the mainstream media, such as websites being hacked, DDoS attacks, etc, and in all of those instances the content is easily communicated in a 30 second soundbite.
- manarth 11y agoAnd if we step outside SSL vulnerabilities: - ILOVEYOU - Melissa - Slammer We've been naming attacks for a long time. Perhaps one difference is that these days, a vulnerability is named if it's deemed high-risk/high-impact. In the past, vulnerabilities became well-known names once they'd been seen to do serious damage.
- laumars 11y agoLet's not forget the Millennium bug. That thing also had a logo: http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/79938000/jpg/_79938728_squarebug.jpg http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/79938000/jpg/_...