3 ms·
Nice straw man, because you didn't disagree with me, you disagreed with someone else's argument. Actually, in the old days, every update was applied as soon as
by Maursault 5y ago
Nice straw man, because you didn't disagree with me, you disagreed with someone else's argument. Actually, in the old days, every update was applied as soon as humanly possible. It is only in the last 25 years that admins have been required to carefully examine updates and weigh the risks of production possibly going down or getting funked against I suppose apparently the incessant barrage of novel network firmware attacks.
- YPPH 5y agoIt's not even arguably a straw man. Above, you said, "worrying about firmware security issues is silly, because if you can't physically prevent access to the computer". That's not someone else's claim, it's yours. If you didn't intend it to be your claim, you erred in expressing it, since that's what it conveys. That's the claim the other poster refuted. I simply don't understand you when you say they "disagreed with someone else's argument"? I control F'd the parent posts and found no such claim made by anyone, except you. Your (apparent) claim is obviously wrong for the reasons already pointed out by the other poster, including that there are firmware-level attacks that do not require physical access. Some of these vulnerabilities can be fixed by firmware updates. So, if possible, it makes sense to promptly apply each patch that will fix such a vulnerability.