4 ms·
It’s interesting how it always the big vendors that seem to suffer attacks like this - is it the more positive angle that simply nobody important uses stuff lik
by buildbot 2y ago
It’s interesting how it always the big vendors that seem to suffer attacks like this - is it the more positive angle that simply nobody important uses stuff like opnsense? Or more negatively, not enough people paying attention to catch these attacks?
- hn_version_0023 2y agoI think its that anyone important has significant money on the line, and hence wants or requires support contracts for their technicians and engineers. That wildly narrows the range of acceptable choices to pretty much just enterprise vendors (IMO), with the result being a greatly reduction attack surface?
- er4hn 2y agoIf this were to happen to an OSS product it would likely get a CVE, but it's less likely to get a report on the controller's behind this and a well written page with pretty graphics unless a security researcher wanted to bolster their credentials. Cisco has enough money to fund their own security company which lets them also investigate issues and issue statements of the form: We are so significant that nation-states target our equipment. We are also so dedicated to security we will write up these reports to show this dedication. Part of it is it makes them look cool. Part of it is if they don't they risk the govt dragging them through the mud, like CISA did for the MSFT email breach. CISA already releases a lot of alerts on Cisco as it is.
- m000 2y ago> We are so significant that nation-states target our equipment. Maybe if they didn't lobby so hard, they would have been spared and Huawei would have been targeted instead. /s > they risk the govt dragging them through the mud Lol. Chances are they're probably already in bed with all sorts of 3-letter agencies for things we'll never learn.