Editing Talk:1957: 2018 CVE List
|
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
"An attacker can execute malicious code on their own machine and no one can stop them" might be a jab at the trend toward more closed systems, where even the owner of a device is limited in what they can do on it. <br/> | "An attacker can execute malicious code on their own machine and no one can stop them" might be a jab at the trend toward more closed systems, where even the owner of a device is limited in what they can do on it. <br/> | ||
"A flaw in Mitre's CVE database allows arbitrary code insertion" could be meant as an explanation for the whole comic, i.e. those joke vulnerabilities were added to the CVE database using this flaw. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.225|141.101.69.225]] 13:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC) | "A flaw in Mitre's CVE database allows arbitrary code insertion" could be meant as an explanation for the whole comic, i.e. those joke vulnerabilities were added to the CVE database using this flaw. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.225|141.101.69.225]] 13:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC) | ||
| − | :Belatedly (thanks to the CAPTCHA problem), I see this as satirizing the attitude of some hardass computer security professionals who think ''no one'', save themselves and certain highly trusted others, should be running malicious code on their own machines even if they aren't connected to the Internet and have no malicious intentions. Sort of like older cops who seethe that people out there are smoking pot or doing other drugs in the privacy of their homes and they can't do ''anything'' about that. | + | :Belatedly (thanks to the CAPTCHA problem), I see this as satirizing the attitude of some hardass computer security professionals who think ''no one'', save themselves and certain highly trusted others, should be running malicious code on their own machines even if they aren't connected to the Internet and have no malicious intentions. Sort of like older cops who seethe that people out there are smoking pot or doing other drugs in the privacy of their homes and they can't do ''anything'' about that. |
It's my first comment here, so I may be wrong. I see the "CRITICAL" as a "differential” joke exhibiting that the requirement standards may be very different from a constructor to another. In fact, it seems that the apple’s bugs described here (crash, fire, remote access granted) are the mosst critical ones. The only two concerning Linux are the one labeled as critical and the one about bribery. I don’t know what to think about the almost complete absence of windows though. Feriaman. | It's my first comment here, so I may be wrong. I see the "CRITICAL" as a "differential” joke exhibiting that the requirement standards may be very different from a constructor to another. In fact, it seems that the apple’s bugs described here (crash, fire, remote access granted) are the mosst critical ones. The only two concerning Linux are the one labeled as critical and the one about bribery. I don’t know what to think about the almost complete absence of windows though. Feriaman. | ||
