4 ms·
A few things to counter here: 1. Considering the sloppy bullshit that is the root cause of 95%+ security vulnerabilities today, I think talking about "0 securi
by Ericson2314 6y ago
A few things to counter here:
1. Considering the sloppy bullshit that is the root cause of 95%+ security vulnerabilities today, I think talking about "0 security" bugs is a distorting strawman.
2. No one said no recalls. The issue here is Microsoft is going after the exploiter rather than the bug, taking the law into their own hands over dubious pretenses.
That's somewhere in between taking the drivers licenses of Corvair owners and recalling the Corvairs themselves. (We could make a better anology if a black hat actor triggered the car defect.)
3. This could easily be precedent for scenario:
1. Security researcher finds bug and discloses it
2. Big crop declines to pay up / doesn't fix in timely manner, etc.
3. Security researcher goes public
4. Malware is made with exploit
5. Big corp goes vigilante on malware like this *and* sues security researcher, using this trademark justification in *both* cases.
- withinboredom 6y agoThey mention in the article how it spreads via emails not via exploits (in which it would be called a worm, not malware).
- saghm 6y agoIsn't a worm just a type of malware? Wikipedia describes malware as "any software intentionally designed to cause damage to a computer, server, client, or computer network".
- Talanes 6y agoSeconded, I've always understood malware to be a broad categorization and not a specific type of attack.
- withinboredom 6y agoI'd always assumed that malware was malicious software disguised as something else; the layman term for trojan. TIL that it's much more generic than that.
- CrazyStat 6y agoIn what sense is Microsoft "taking the law into their own hands"? They filed a lawsuit and convinced the judge to agree with their legal theory. That's how the legal system works. There is no vigilantism here.