4 ms·

A lot of tech related journalism gets (fairly) maligned. This is truly amazing writing, and I highly recommend reading the whole book, even if you know most of

A lot of tech related journalism gets (fairly) maligned. This is truly amazing writing, and I highly recommend reading the whole book, even if you know most of the story.

res0nat0r 12y ago
This is arriving from Amazon tomorrow, looking forward to reading it.
lawnchair_larry 12y ago
Based on this excerpt, it's clear that the author is out of her element on the technical issues. Several parts of this passage are sensationalized and/or inaccurate. Ether that, or it's intentionally written this way to be target non-technical readers.
PhantomGremlin 12y ago
I wouldn't call it "amazing" writing, IMO it's silly sensationalism. Here's a particularly annoying sentence: There was nothing like staring down the barrel of a suspected cyberweapon to clear the fog in your mind. Yeah, right. Staring down the barrel of a probably non-functional rusty .25 would clear my mind a lot faster than would some random Windows malware. Which begs the question. After thousands of different Windows viruses have been identified, why is any company anywhere in the world still using that crap on any of their computers? Let alone why does a CA let Windows computers into their infrastructure?
- stiles 12y ago
  Really? Even if the malware was nearly identical to that of a previously found malware that was presumably used by a government on government attack? But whatever, seems you are more mad at windows than any sensationalism in the article.
  - PhantomGremlin 12y ago
    Yes, really. I have a very healthy respect for firearms. I've fired plenty of guns and I would never want to be looking at the wrong end of one. It would scare the shit out of me! There is a very strict rule when dealing with firearms. You NEVER EVER point a gun at anyone else. Ever. No joking. No kidding around. You only point a gun at someone if you are prepared to imminently use it against that person. This means, literally, "life or death". I've been handling guns for over 45 years and I've never even considered breaking that rule, nor have I seen anyone else break it. BTW one corollary to this is "there is no such thing as an accidental discharge, only a negligent discharge". Heck, I've even "died" in paintball enough times to know that I don't like the odds. Software, even malicious software, is OTOH "meh". Even if it's written by government hackers. It's simply not scary at all. IMO the analogy of guns to software was probably written by someone who wasn't familiar with firearms. And you're right about my abhorrence of Windows. For close to twenty years now, everyone has sat around and said "oh no, woe is me, another virus, it's hopeless, it's terrible, I'm scared, my business is threatened, hackers are stealing my secrets". The details change, the general story is the same. To which my response is: "the only winning move is not to play". So why do people keep using Windows?
    - GotAnyMegadeth 12y ago
      Do you think that if another company's OS became the "New Windows" that that wouldn't have loads of viruses? Computer security is hard, Windows gets targeted by virus creators because that way they get the most chance to infect machines, not because Windows is less secure. If Windows and any other OS swapped market share today, there'd be just as many viruses for that new OS in 6 months time.
    - eli 12y ago
      You realize it's a metaphor and not a literal gun, right? And surely the most popular OS will be the one most targeted by criminals no matter what it is.
      - groupstink 12y ago
        I think he's just trying to point out that the metaphor isn't apt, since most malware is as effective as a "non-functional rusty .25", but nowhere near as scary. My heart starts racing a bit when I suspect my systems might be tampered with, so I think the metaphor does apply. What would have been better if the parent provided a better, less hyperbolic metaphor.

A lot of tech related journalism gets (fairly) maligned. This is truly amazing writing, and I highly recommend reading the whole book, even if you know most of the story.

res0nat0r 12y ago

This is arriving from Amazon tomorrow, looking forward to reading it.

lawnchair_larry 12y ago

Based on this excerpt, it's clear that the author is out of her element on the technical issues. Several parts of this passage are sensationalized and/or inaccurate. Ether that, or it's intentionally written this way to be target non-technical readers.

PhantomGremlin 12y ago

I wouldn't call it "amazing" writing, IMO it's silly sensationalism. Here's a particularly annoying sentence: There was nothing like staring down the barrel of a suspected cyberweapon to clear the fog in your mind. Yeah, right. Staring down the barrel of a probably non-functional rusty .25 would clear my mind a lot faster than would some random Windows malware. Which begs the question. After thousands of different Windows viruses have been identified, why is any company anywhere in the world still using that crap on any of their computers? Let alone why does a CA let Windows computers into their infrastructure?

stiles 12y ago
Really? Even if the malware was nearly identical to that of a previously found malware that was presumably used by a government on government attack? But whatever, seems you are more mad at windows than any sensationalism in the article.
- PhantomGremlin 12y ago
  Yes, really. I have a very healthy respect for firearms. I've fired plenty of guns and I would never want to be looking at the wrong end of one. It would scare the shit out of me! There is a very strict rule when dealing with firearms. You NEVER EVER point a gun at anyone else. Ever. No joking. No kidding around. You only point a gun at someone if you are prepared to imminently use it against that person. This means, literally, "life or death". I've been handling guns for over 45 years and I've never even considered breaking that rule, nor have I seen anyone else break it. BTW one corollary to this is "there is no such thing as an accidental discharge, only a negligent discharge". Heck, I've even "died" in paintball enough times to know that I don't like the odds. Software, even malicious software, is OTOH "meh". Even if it's written by government hackers. It's simply not scary at all. IMO the analogy of guns to software was probably written by someone who wasn't familiar with firearms. And you're right about my abhorrence of Windows. For close to twenty years now, everyone has sat around and said "oh no, woe is me, another virus, it's hopeless, it's terrible, I'm scared, my business is threatened, hackers are stealing my secrets". The details change, the general story is the same. To which my response is: "the only winning move is not to play". So why do people keep using Windows?
  - GotAnyMegadeth 12y ago
    Do you think that if another company's OS became the "New Windows" that that wouldn't have loads of viruses? Computer security is hard, Windows gets targeted by virus creators because that way they get the most chance to infect machines, not because Windows is less secure. If Windows and any other OS swapped market share today, there'd be just as many viruses for that new OS in 6 months time.
  - eli 12y ago
    You realize it's a metaphor and not a literal gun, right? And surely the most popular OS will be the one most targeted by criminals no matter what it is.
    - groupstink 12y ago
      I think he's just trying to point out that the metaphor isn't apt, since most malware is as effective as a "non-functional rusty .25", but nowhere near as scary. My heart starts racing a bit when I suspect my systems might be tampered with, so I think the metaphor does apply. What would have been better if the parent provided a better, less hyperbolic metaphor.