3 ms·
It's closer to losing ECC; if you need it you can get it and if you don't need it you don't even need to know it exists. You're being rather alarmist, don't you
by Godel_unicode 10y ago
It's closer to losing ECC; if you need it you can get it and if you don't need it you don't even need to know it exists. You're being rather alarmist, don't you think?
> Has anyone actually seen malware spread this way in the past 10 years in the wild
Yup, had several IR cases (trending up) where this was determined to be the initial vector. Related: stop making this argument. Nothing is seen in the wild until it is (go back a few years and realize this argument was made about cryptowall-style malware).
I think you should re-read the end of my first paragraph; isolation should have an off switch. Give people the option and let them choose. Sorry if that's bad for your business model.
- goodplay 10y agoI also believe that trading real networks for supposed security would be a very bad move. Network node security should not be delegated to the network. Not only would this necessitate forgoing very useful features that networks enable, you won't improve node security. Devices that are vulnerable by merely sharing a network with other nodes tend to have other more sever security lapses. I agree that a button is simple way to switch between modes, but it will also make point-to-point the default. People don't change defaults, and companies will eventually cease to implement network capability as a result. I'm all for better network security, but not at the expense of discarding the network itself.