5 ms·
I’m honestly impressed that they managed to screw this up somehow. Setting up defense in depth, gaps, logical blocking etc is a standard practice for malware s
by ofjcihen 3mo ago
I’m honestly impressed that they managed to screw this up somehow.
Setting up defense in depth, gaps, logical blocking etc is a standard practice for malware sandboxing. The entire purpose is to prepare for what you can’t foresee.
This isn’t a new practice and I agree that this makes me wonder if they’re fit for this kind of research.
- bad_haircut72 3mo agodid you read the post? The model found new Zero-days to bypass existing blocks. Thats the point. Do you still think you can build a containment facility, which is still physically connected to the internet (only firewalled off or whatever) and contain it, if it can discover new unknown vulnerabilities in your whole plan?
- ofjcihen 3mo agoYes. You factor this in when creating environments for malware research. Defense in depth is one way. Logical blocks on the network is another. Just claiming “0-Day” isn’t really an excuse.
- thewebguyd 3mo ago> which is still physically connected to the internet I mean that's the point. Why was it connected to the internet at all and just firewalled off and not completely airgapped?