3 ms·
First off, a "dangerous thing you can do" and "exploit" are not synonyms. So examples like anthrax attacks or home invasion are stupid and massively miss the po
by Grue3 11y ago
First off, a "dangerous thing you can do" and "exploit" are not synonyms. So examples like anthrax attacks or home invasion are stupid and massively miss the point.
Secondly, nobody would give a fuck about this exploit if it was performed in controlled environment. The researchers knew it because they did this kind of stuff before. Guess what, the cars did not become any safer!
This much should be obvious to anyone with a hacking mindset. The comments in this thread read more like "Moms Against Drunk Driving Bulletin Board" than "Hacker News".
- hoopism 11y agoActually home invasion is an "exploit" of the home security (i.e. locked doors / windows). Just because they do it from behind a screen doesn't make it a less culpable crime. Computers don't insulate you from ethics... We put locks on our doors to prevent people from entering. They have always been exploitable but we use threat of laws to prevent it. Now we put locks in our software to prevent people from entering it (encryption). Somehow this generation believes that these locks are exempt from decency and law. It's sad that people think exposing vulnerabilities at any cost is righteous. There's plenty of people researching security in responsible ways. These two are not in that camp. Have fun... it's no different than kicking your neighbors door down and tell him to pay you for exposing his security flaw. Still makes you are jerk.