▲ 94 ▼ CPUID site hijacked to serve malware instead of HWMonitor downloads (www.theregister.com) submitted 6 months ago by cm0002@infosec.pub to c/cybersecurity@infosec.pub 28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 9 points 6 months ago (20 children) Oh sweet summer child… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -20 points 6 months ago* (19 children) Nah. Nothing is perfect of course, but normalizing executing software sourced from random, untrustworthy websites will always be objectively worse than curated repos. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 21 points 6 months ago* (18 children) It is hardly a random untrustworthy site, it is the software publishers site. There is no reason that a package repo can’t suffer a similar attack. Your confidence is entirely misplaced. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -23 points 6 months ago* (17 children) Oh I guess I should totally put my confidence in random sketchy websites. Great point! It literally doesn't matter if it's a publisher site or not, users can't tell the difference and it normalizes clicking links from a web search and running whatever software download the user sees first. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 12 points 6 months ago (16 children) Go on then, explain to me how the well known software publishers website is random and sketchy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -26 points 6 months ago* (15 children) I feel like you've demonstrated very effectively how users lack the skills to understand what they are reading online 😂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 15 points 6 months ago (14 children) It isn’t a random, sketchy or inherently untrustworthy site. You shouldn’t have any issue explaining how you would go about verifying that a software repo is trustworthy and how that differs from verifying a website. Unless you don’t actually know what you’re talking about… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -12 points 6 months ago* (13 children) I'll just paste what I already wrote in hopes that your reading comprehension benefits from reading it a second time: It literally doesn't matter if it's a publisher site or not, users can't tell the difference and it normalizes clicking links from a web search and running whatever software download the user sees first. Again, louder this time, PACKAGE REPOSITORIES WILL ALWAYS BE OBJECTIVELY BETTER THAN RANDOM, UNTRUSTWORTHY WEBSITES. Enjoy your ignorance and viruses permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 9 points 6 months ago (12 children) It doesn't matter if the software is delivered via a publishers website or via a package repository if the supply chain has been compromised. Clearly you're not aware of any recent cyber security news or you'd know that the NPM package manager has suffered numerous attacks: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/shai-hulud-malware-infects-500-npm-packages-leaks-secrets-on-github/ I guess you should trust NPM though because its a package manager! You're just encouraging people to blindly use and trust repos with no understanding of the pros or cons, and without understanding how you can verify and test software yourself to reduce risk. This is especially an easy conversaion when we talk closed source vs open source and you failed to even bring that up. Repeating nonsense claims instead of actually considering the entirely reasonable question only highlights that you're victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect. You could have had a conversation and learned something from an actual cyber security professional and instead you've acted like a clown. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago* (11 children) ItS nOt PeRfEcT sO iT cAnT bE bEtTeR Cope. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (10 children) hehehe seethe about it clown permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (9 children) You're so close to understanding. All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Please quote me where I claimed that software repositories are less vulnerable to supply chain attacks. You were wrong about something, constructed a strawman argument, and are grasping at straws to save face. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (8 children) rAnDoM wEbSiTeS permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago* (7 children) That's what I thought. Are you done speed-running through as many logical fallacies as possible? Multiple strawman arguments, no true scottsman/appeal to authority, name calling/ad hominem. You wouldn't have to resort to these if you were just correct, like me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (6 children) Since you don't understand, you lowered the level of the conversation and now I'm going to continue on that level because you get what you deserve. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance - in a field I am a professional in and have given reasoned and valid advice on. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. Given a real world example you simply ignore it "but search results" eat shit you moron. The legitimate website was popped so "rAnDoM wEbSiTeS" aren't a factor or relevant. JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children) Addressing logical fallacies elevates the discussion to place where it can actually be productive, not lowers it. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. It's not relevant because it applies to both random websites and code repositories equally. Again, please quote me where I claimed that code repositories are not susceptible to this. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance You've demonstrated both of these, so it is just statement of fact. "you moron" this you? JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit Ironic, you're the only one who has said those words. Another strawman. At no point have I supported just trusting anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 2 points 6 months ago (4 children) get ratiod fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago Not you, but some advice(?). permalink fedilink source parent [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -4 points 6 months ago* (2 children) All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Doesn't change that this ^ is a fact you can't refute, so I'm correct. Your entire argument is strawman arguing against claims that I've never made and name calling. You're basically just arguing with yourself. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krudler@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 child) You can't tell after getting completely obliterated by downvotes and repeatedly rebutted that you're the one in weeds? Clueless much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago And yet my point was never refuted permalink fedilink source parent
[+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -20 points 6 months ago* (19 children) Nah. Nothing is perfect of course, but normalizing executing software sourced from random, untrustworthy websites will always be objectively worse than curated repos. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 21 points 6 months ago* (18 children) It is hardly a random untrustworthy site, it is the software publishers site. There is no reason that a package repo can’t suffer a similar attack. Your confidence is entirely misplaced. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -23 points 6 months ago* (17 children) Oh I guess I should totally put my confidence in random sketchy websites. Great point! It literally doesn't matter if it's a publisher site or not, users can't tell the difference and it normalizes clicking links from a web search and running whatever software download the user sees first. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 12 points 6 months ago (16 children) Go on then, explain to me how the well known software publishers website is random and sketchy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -26 points 6 months ago* (15 children) I feel like you've demonstrated very effectively how users lack the skills to understand what they are reading online 😂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 15 points 6 months ago (14 children) It isn’t a random, sketchy or inherently untrustworthy site. You shouldn’t have any issue explaining how you would go about verifying that a software repo is trustworthy and how that differs from verifying a website. Unless you don’t actually know what you’re talking about… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -12 points 6 months ago* (13 children) I'll just paste what I already wrote in hopes that your reading comprehension benefits from reading it a second time: It literally doesn't matter if it's a publisher site or not, users can't tell the difference and it normalizes clicking links from a web search and running whatever software download the user sees first. Again, louder this time, PACKAGE REPOSITORIES WILL ALWAYS BE OBJECTIVELY BETTER THAN RANDOM, UNTRUSTWORTHY WEBSITES. Enjoy your ignorance and viruses permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 9 points 6 months ago (12 children) It doesn't matter if the software is delivered via a publishers website or via a package repository if the supply chain has been compromised. Clearly you're not aware of any recent cyber security news or you'd know that the NPM package manager has suffered numerous attacks: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/shai-hulud-malware-infects-500-npm-packages-leaks-secrets-on-github/ I guess you should trust NPM though because its a package manager! You're just encouraging people to blindly use and trust repos with no understanding of the pros or cons, and without understanding how you can verify and test software yourself to reduce risk. This is especially an easy conversaion when we talk closed source vs open source and you failed to even bring that up. Repeating nonsense claims instead of actually considering the entirely reasonable question only highlights that you're victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect. You could have had a conversation and learned something from an actual cyber security professional and instead you've acted like a clown. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago* (11 children) ItS nOt PeRfEcT sO iT cAnT bE bEtTeR Cope. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (10 children) hehehe seethe about it clown permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (9 children) You're so close to understanding. All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Please quote me where I claimed that software repositories are less vulnerable to supply chain attacks. You were wrong about something, constructed a strawman argument, and are grasping at straws to save face. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (8 children) rAnDoM wEbSiTeS permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago* (7 children) That's what I thought. Are you done speed-running through as many logical fallacies as possible? Multiple strawman arguments, no true scottsman/appeal to authority, name calling/ad hominem. You wouldn't have to resort to these if you were just correct, like me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (6 children) Since you don't understand, you lowered the level of the conversation and now I'm going to continue on that level because you get what you deserve. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance - in a field I am a professional in and have given reasoned and valid advice on. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. Given a real world example you simply ignore it "but search results" eat shit you moron. The legitimate website was popped so "rAnDoM wEbSiTeS" aren't a factor or relevant. JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children) Addressing logical fallacies elevates the discussion to place where it can actually be productive, not lowers it. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. It's not relevant because it applies to both random websites and code repositories equally. Again, please quote me where I claimed that code repositories are not susceptible to this. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance You've demonstrated both of these, so it is just statement of fact. "you moron" this you? JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit Ironic, you're the only one who has said those words. Another strawman. At no point have I supported just trusting anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 2 points 6 months ago (4 children) get ratiod fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago Not you, but some advice(?). permalink fedilink source parent [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -4 points 6 months ago* (2 children) All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Doesn't change that this ^ is a fact you can't refute, so I'm correct. Your entire argument is strawman arguing against claims that I've never made and name calling. You're basically just arguing with yourself. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krudler@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 child) You can't tell after getting completely obliterated by downvotes and repeatedly rebutted that you're the one in weeds? Clueless much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago And yet my point was never refuted permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cypher@aussie.zone 21 points 6 months ago* (18 children) It is hardly a random untrustworthy site, it is the software publishers site. There is no reason that a package repo can’t suffer a similar attack. Your confidence is entirely misplaced. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -23 points 6 months ago* (17 children) Oh I guess I should totally put my confidence in random sketchy websites. Great point! It literally doesn't matter if it's a publisher site or not, users can't tell the difference and it normalizes clicking links from a web search and running whatever software download the user sees first. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 12 points 6 months ago (16 children) Go on then, explain to me how the well known software publishers website is random and sketchy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -26 points 6 months ago* (15 children) I feel like you've demonstrated very effectively how users lack the skills to understand what they are reading online 😂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 15 points 6 months ago (14 children) It isn’t a random, sketchy or inherently untrustworthy site. You shouldn’t have any issue explaining how you would go about verifying that a software repo is trustworthy and how that differs from verifying a website. Unless you don’t actually know what you’re talking about… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -12 points 6 months ago* (13 children) I'll just paste what I already wrote in hopes that your reading comprehension benefits from reading it a second time: It literally doesn't matter if it's a publisher site or not, users can't tell the difference and it normalizes clicking links from a web search and running whatever software download the user sees first. Again, louder this time, PACKAGE REPOSITORIES WILL ALWAYS BE OBJECTIVELY BETTER THAN RANDOM, UNTRUSTWORTHY WEBSITES. Enjoy your ignorance and viruses permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 9 points 6 months ago (12 children) It doesn't matter if the software is delivered via a publishers website or via a package repository if the supply chain has been compromised. Clearly you're not aware of any recent cyber security news or you'd know that the NPM package manager has suffered numerous attacks: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/shai-hulud-malware-infects-500-npm-packages-leaks-secrets-on-github/ I guess you should trust NPM though because its a package manager! You're just encouraging people to blindly use and trust repos with no understanding of the pros or cons, and without understanding how you can verify and test software yourself to reduce risk. This is especially an easy conversaion when we talk closed source vs open source and you failed to even bring that up. Repeating nonsense claims instead of actually considering the entirely reasonable question only highlights that you're victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect. You could have had a conversation and learned something from an actual cyber security professional and instead you've acted like a clown. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago* (11 children) ItS nOt PeRfEcT sO iT cAnT bE bEtTeR Cope. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (10 children) hehehe seethe about it clown permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (9 children) You're so close to understanding. All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Please quote me where I claimed that software repositories are less vulnerable to supply chain attacks. You were wrong about something, constructed a strawman argument, and are grasping at straws to save face. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (8 children) rAnDoM wEbSiTeS permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago* (7 children) That's what I thought. Are you done speed-running through as many logical fallacies as possible? Multiple strawman arguments, no true scottsman/appeal to authority, name calling/ad hominem. You wouldn't have to resort to these if you were just correct, like me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (6 children) Since you don't understand, you lowered the level of the conversation and now I'm going to continue on that level because you get what you deserve. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance - in a field I am a professional in and have given reasoned and valid advice on. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. Given a real world example you simply ignore it "but search results" eat shit you moron. The legitimate website was popped so "rAnDoM wEbSiTeS" aren't a factor or relevant. JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children) Addressing logical fallacies elevates the discussion to place where it can actually be productive, not lowers it. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. It's not relevant because it applies to both random websites and code repositories equally. Again, please quote me where I claimed that code repositories are not susceptible to this. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance You've demonstrated both of these, so it is just statement of fact. "you moron" this you? JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit Ironic, you're the only one who has said those words. Another strawman. At no point have I supported just trusting anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 2 points 6 months ago (4 children) get ratiod fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago Not you, but some advice(?). permalink fedilink source parent [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -4 points 6 months ago* (2 children) All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Doesn't change that this ^ is a fact you can't refute, so I'm correct. Your entire argument is strawman arguing against claims that I've never made and name calling. You're basically just arguing with yourself. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krudler@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 child) You can't tell after getting completely obliterated by downvotes and repeatedly rebutted that you're the one in weeds? Clueless much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago And yet my point was never refuted permalink fedilink source parent
[+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -23 points 6 months ago* (17 children) Oh I guess I should totally put my confidence in random sketchy websites. Great point! It literally doesn't matter if it's a publisher site or not, users can't tell the difference and it normalizes clicking links from a web search and running whatever software download the user sees first. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 12 points 6 months ago (16 children) Go on then, explain to me how the well known software publishers website is random and sketchy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -26 points 6 months ago* (15 children) I feel like you've demonstrated very effectively how users lack the skills to understand what they are reading online 😂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 15 points 6 months ago (14 children) It isn’t a random, sketchy or inherently untrustworthy site. You shouldn’t have any issue explaining how you would go about verifying that a software repo is trustworthy and how that differs from verifying a website. Unless you don’t actually know what you’re talking about… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -12 points 6 months ago* (13 children) I'll just paste what I already wrote in hopes that your reading comprehension benefits from reading it a second time: It literally doesn't matter if it's a publisher site or not, users can't tell the difference and it normalizes clicking links from a web search and running whatever software download the user sees first. Again, louder this time, PACKAGE REPOSITORIES WILL ALWAYS BE OBJECTIVELY BETTER THAN RANDOM, UNTRUSTWORTHY WEBSITES. Enjoy your ignorance and viruses permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 9 points 6 months ago (12 children) It doesn't matter if the software is delivered via a publishers website or via a package repository if the supply chain has been compromised. Clearly you're not aware of any recent cyber security news or you'd know that the NPM package manager has suffered numerous attacks: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/shai-hulud-malware-infects-500-npm-packages-leaks-secrets-on-github/ I guess you should trust NPM though because its a package manager! You're just encouraging people to blindly use and trust repos with no understanding of the pros or cons, and without understanding how you can verify and test software yourself to reduce risk. This is especially an easy conversaion when we talk closed source vs open source and you failed to even bring that up. Repeating nonsense claims instead of actually considering the entirely reasonable question only highlights that you're victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect. You could have had a conversation and learned something from an actual cyber security professional and instead you've acted like a clown. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago* (11 children) ItS nOt PeRfEcT sO iT cAnT bE bEtTeR Cope. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (10 children) hehehe seethe about it clown permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (9 children) You're so close to understanding. All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Please quote me where I claimed that software repositories are less vulnerable to supply chain attacks. You were wrong about something, constructed a strawman argument, and are grasping at straws to save face. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (8 children) rAnDoM wEbSiTeS permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago* (7 children) That's what I thought. Are you done speed-running through as many logical fallacies as possible? Multiple strawman arguments, no true scottsman/appeal to authority, name calling/ad hominem. You wouldn't have to resort to these if you were just correct, like me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (6 children) Since you don't understand, you lowered the level of the conversation and now I'm going to continue on that level because you get what you deserve. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance - in a field I am a professional in and have given reasoned and valid advice on. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. Given a real world example you simply ignore it "but search results" eat shit you moron. The legitimate website was popped so "rAnDoM wEbSiTeS" aren't a factor or relevant. JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children) Addressing logical fallacies elevates the discussion to place where it can actually be productive, not lowers it. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. It's not relevant because it applies to both random websites and code repositories equally. Again, please quote me where I claimed that code repositories are not susceptible to this. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance You've demonstrated both of these, so it is just statement of fact. "you moron" this you? JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit Ironic, you're the only one who has said those words. Another strawman. At no point have I supported just trusting anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 2 points 6 months ago (4 children) get ratiod fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago Not you, but some advice(?). permalink fedilink source parent [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -4 points 6 months ago* (2 children) All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Doesn't change that this ^ is a fact you can't refute, so I'm correct. Your entire argument is strawman arguing against claims that I've never made and name calling. You're basically just arguing with yourself. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krudler@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 child) You can't tell after getting completely obliterated by downvotes and repeatedly rebutted that you're the one in weeds? Clueless much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago And yet my point was never refuted permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cypher@aussie.zone 12 points 6 months ago (16 children) Go on then, explain to me how the well known software publishers website is random and sketchy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -26 points 6 months ago* (15 children) I feel like you've demonstrated very effectively how users lack the skills to understand what they are reading online 😂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 15 points 6 months ago (14 children) It isn’t a random, sketchy or inherently untrustworthy site. You shouldn’t have any issue explaining how you would go about verifying that a software repo is trustworthy and how that differs from verifying a website. Unless you don’t actually know what you’re talking about… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -12 points 6 months ago* (13 children) I'll just paste what I already wrote in hopes that your reading comprehension benefits from reading it a second time: It literally doesn't matter if it's a publisher site or not, users can't tell the difference and it normalizes clicking links from a web search and running whatever software download the user sees first. Again, louder this time, PACKAGE REPOSITORIES WILL ALWAYS BE OBJECTIVELY BETTER THAN RANDOM, UNTRUSTWORTHY WEBSITES. Enjoy your ignorance and viruses permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 9 points 6 months ago (12 children) It doesn't matter if the software is delivered via a publishers website or via a package repository if the supply chain has been compromised. Clearly you're not aware of any recent cyber security news or you'd know that the NPM package manager has suffered numerous attacks: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/shai-hulud-malware-infects-500-npm-packages-leaks-secrets-on-github/ I guess you should trust NPM though because its a package manager! You're just encouraging people to blindly use and trust repos with no understanding of the pros or cons, and without understanding how you can verify and test software yourself to reduce risk. This is especially an easy conversaion when we talk closed source vs open source and you failed to even bring that up. Repeating nonsense claims instead of actually considering the entirely reasonable question only highlights that you're victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect. You could have had a conversation and learned something from an actual cyber security professional and instead you've acted like a clown. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago* (11 children) ItS nOt PeRfEcT sO iT cAnT bE bEtTeR Cope. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (10 children) hehehe seethe about it clown permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (9 children) You're so close to understanding. All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Please quote me where I claimed that software repositories are less vulnerable to supply chain attacks. You were wrong about something, constructed a strawman argument, and are grasping at straws to save face. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (8 children) rAnDoM wEbSiTeS permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago* (7 children) That's what I thought. Are you done speed-running through as many logical fallacies as possible? Multiple strawman arguments, no true scottsman/appeal to authority, name calling/ad hominem. You wouldn't have to resort to these if you were just correct, like me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (6 children) Since you don't understand, you lowered the level of the conversation and now I'm going to continue on that level because you get what you deserve. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance - in a field I am a professional in and have given reasoned and valid advice on. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. Given a real world example you simply ignore it "but search results" eat shit you moron. The legitimate website was popped so "rAnDoM wEbSiTeS" aren't a factor or relevant. JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children) Addressing logical fallacies elevates the discussion to place where it can actually be productive, not lowers it. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. It's not relevant because it applies to both random websites and code repositories equally. Again, please quote me where I claimed that code repositories are not susceptible to this. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance You've demonstrated both of these, so it is just statement of fact. "you moron" this you? JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit Ironic, you're the only one who has said those words. Another strawman. At no point have I supported just trusting anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 2 points 6 months ago (4 children) get ratiod fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago Not you, but some advice(?). permalink fedilink source parent [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -4 points 6 months ago* (2 children) All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Doesn't change that this ^ is a fact you can't refute, so I'm correct. Your entire argument is strawman arguing against claims that I've never made and name calling. You're basically just arguing with yourself. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krudler@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 child) You can't tell after getting completely obliterated by downvotes and repeatedly rebutted that you're the one in weeds? Clueless much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago And yet my point was never refuted permalink fedilink source parent
[+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -26 points 6 months ago* (15 children) I feel like you've demonstrated very effectively how users lack the skills to understand what they are reading online 😂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 15 points 6 months ago (14 children) It isn’t a random, sketchy or inherently untrustworthy site. You shouldn’t have any issue explaining how you would go about verifying that a software repo is trustworthy and how that differs from verifying a website. Unless you don’t actually know what you’re talking about… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -12 points 6 months ago* (13 children) I'll just paste what I already wrote in hopes that your reading comprehension benefits from reading it a second time: It literally doesn't matter if it's a publisher site or not, users can't tell the difference and it normalizes clicking links from a web search and running whatever software download the user sees first. Again, louder this time, PACKAGE REPOSITORIES WILL ALWAYS BE OBJECTIVELY BETTER THAN RANDOM, UNTRUSTWORTHY WEBSITES. Enjoy your ignorance and viruses permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 9 points 6 months ago (12 children) It doesn't matter if the software is delivered via a publishers website or via a package repository if the supply chain has been compromised. Clearly you're not aware of any recent cyber security news or you'd know that the NPM package manager has suffered numerous attacks: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/shai-hulud-malware-infects-500-npm-packages-leaks-secrets-on-github/ I guess you should trust NPM though because its a package manager! You're just encouraging people to blindly use and trust repos with no understanding of the pros or cons, and without understanding how you can verify and test software yourself to reduce risk. This is especially an easy conversaion when we talk closed source vs open source and you failed to even bring that up. Repeating nonsense claims instead of actually considering the entirely reasonable question only highlights that you're victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect. You could have had a conversation and learned something from an actual cyber security professional and instead you've acted like a clown. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago* (11 children) ItS nOt PeRfEcT sO iT cAnT bE bEtTeR Cope. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (10 children) hehehe seethe about it clown permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (9 children) You're so close to understanding. All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Please quote me where I claimed that software repositories are less vulnerable to supply chain attacks. You were wrong about something, constructed a strawman argument, and are grasping at straws to save face. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (8 children) rAnDoM wEbSiTeS permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago* (7 children) That's what I thought. Are you done speed-running through as many logical fallacies as possible? Multiple strawman arguments, no true scottsman/appeal to authority, name calling/ad hominem. You wouldn't have to resort to these if you were just correct, like me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (6 children) Since you don't understand, you lowered the level of the conversation and now I'm going to continue on that level because you get what you deserve. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance - in a field I am a professional in and have given reasoned and valid advice on. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. Given a real world example you simply ignore it "but search results" eat shit you moron. The legitimate website was popped so "rAnDoM wEbSiTeS" aren't a factor or relevant. JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children) Addressing logical fallacies elevates the discussion to place where it can actually be productive, not lowers it. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. It's not relevant because it applies to both random websites and code repositories equally. Again, please quote me where I claimed that code repositories are not susceptible to this. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance You've demonstrated both of these, so it is just statement of fact. "you moron" this you? JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit Ironic, you're the only one who has said those words. Another strawman. At no point have I supported just trusting anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 2 points 6 months ago (4 children) get ratiod fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago Not you, but some advice(?). permalink fedilink source parent [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -4 points 6 months ago* (2 children) All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Doesn't change that this ^ is a fact you can't refute, so I'm correct. Your entire argument is strawman arguing against claims that I've never made and name calling. You're basically just arguing with yourself. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krudler@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 child) You can't tell after getting completely obliterated by downvotes and repeatedly rebutted that you're the one in weeds? Clueless much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago And yet my point was never refuted permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cypher@aussie.zone 15 points 6 months ago (14 children) It isn’t a random, sketchy or inherently untrustworthy site. You shouldn’t have any issue explaining how you would go about verifying that a software repo is trustworthy and how that differs from verifying a website. Unless you don’t actually know what you’re talking about… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -12 points 6 months ago* (13 children) I'll just paste what I already wrote in hopes that your reading comprehension benefits from reading it a second time: It literally doesn't matter if it's a publisher site or not, users can't tell the difference and it normalizes clicking links from a web search and running whatever software download the user sees first. Again, louder this time, PACKAGE REPOSITORIES WILL ALWAYS BE OBJECTIVELY BETTER THAN RANDOM, UNTRUSTWORTHY WEBSITES. Enjoy your ignorance and viruses permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 9 points 6 months ago (12 children) It doesn't matter if the software is delivered via a publishers website or via a package repository if the supply chain has been compromised. Clearly you're not aware of any recent cyber security news or you'd know that the NPM package manager has suffered numerous attacks: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/shai-hulud-malware-infects-500-npm-packages-leaks-secrets-on-github/ I guess you should trust NPM though because its a package manager! You're just encouraging people to blindly use and trust repos with no understanding of the pros or cons, and without understanding how you can verify and test software yourself to reduce risk. This is especially an easy conversaion when we talk closed source vs open source and you failed to even bring that up. Repeating nonsense claims instead of actually considering the entirely reasonable question only highlights that you're victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect. You could have had a conversation and learned something from an actual cyber security professional and instead you've acted like a clown. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago* (11 children) ItS nOt PeRfEcT sO iT cAnT bE bEtTeR Cope. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (10 children) hehehe seethe about it clown permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (9 children) You're so close to understanding. All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Please quote me where I claimed that software repositories are less vulnerable to supply chain attacks. You were wrong about something, constructed a strawman argument, and are grasping at straws to save face. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (8 children) rAnDoM wEbSiTeS permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago* (7 children) That's what I thought. Are you done speed-running through as many logical fallacies as possible? Multiple strawman arguments, no true scottsman/appeal to authority, name calling/ad hominem. You wouldn't have to resort to these if you were just correct, like me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (6 children) Since you don't understand, you lowered the level of the conversation and now I'm going to continue on that level because you get what you deserve. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance - in a field I am a professional in and have given reasoned and valid advice on. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. Given a real world example you simply ignore it "but search results" eat shit you moron. The legitimate website was popped so "rAnDoM wEbSiTeS" aren't a factor or relevant. JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children) Addressing logical fallacies elevates the discussion to place where it can actually be productive, not lowers it. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. It's not relevant because it applies to both random websites and code repositories equally. Again, please quote me where I claimed that code repositories are not susceptible to this. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance You've demonstrated both of these, so it is just statement of fact. "you moron" this you? JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit Ironic, you're the only one who has said those words. Another strawman. At no point have I supported just trusting anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 2 points 6 months ago (4 children) get ratiod fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago Not you, but some advice(?). permalink fedilink source parent [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -4 points 6 months ago* (2 children) All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Doesn't change that this ^ is a fact you can't refute, so I'm correct. Your entire argument is strawman arguing against claims that I've never made and name calling. You're basically just arguing with yourself. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krudler@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 child) You can't tell after getting completely obliterated by downvotes and repeatedly rebutted that you're the one in weeds? Clueless much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago And yet my point was never refuted permalink fedilink source parent
[+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -12 points 6 months ago* (13 children) I'll just paste what I already wrote in hopes that your reading comprehension benefits from reading it a second time: It literally doesn't matter if it's a publisher site or not, users can't tell the difference and it normalizes clicking links from a web search and running whatever software download the user sees first. Again, louder this time, PACKAGE REPOSITORIES WILL ALWAYS BE OBJECTIVELY BETTER THAN RANDOM, UNTRUSTWORTHY WEBSITES. Enjoy your ignorance and viruses permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 9 points 6 months ago (12 children) It doesn't matter if the software is delivered via a publishers website or via a package repository if the supply chain has been compromised. Clearly you're not aware of any recent cyber security news or you'd know that the NPM package manager has suffered numerous attacks: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/shai-hulud-malware-infects-500-npm-packages-leaks-secrets-on-github/ I guess you should trust NPM though because its a package manager! You're just encouraging people to blindly use and trust repos with no understanding of the pros or cons, and without understanding how you can verify and test software yourself to reduce risk. This is especially an easy conversaion when we talk closed source vs open source and you failed to even bring that up. Repeating nonsense claims instead of actually considering the entirely reasonable question only highlights that you're victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect. You could have had a conversation and learned something from an actual cyber security professional and instead you've acted like a clown. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago* (11 children) ItS nOt PeRfEcT sO iT cAnT bE bEtTeR Cope. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (10 children) hehehe seethe about it clown permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (9 children) You're so close to understanding. All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Please quote me where I claimed that software repositories are less vulnerable to supply chain attacks. You were wrong about something, constructed a strawman argument, and are grasping at straws to save face. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (8 children) rAnDoM wEbSiTeS permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago* (7 children) That's what I thought. Are you done speed-running through as many logical fallacies as possible? Multiple strawman arguments, no true scottsman/appeal to authority, name calling/ad hominem. You wouldn't have to resort to these if you were just correct, like me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (6 children) Since you don't understand, you lowered the level of the conversation and now I'm going to continue on that level because you get what you deserve. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance - in a field I am a professional in and have given reasoned and valid advice on. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. Given a real world example you simply ignore it "but search results" eat shit you moron. The legitimate website was popped so "rAnDoM wEbSiTeS" aren't a factor or relevant. JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children) Addressing logical fallacies elevates the discussion to place where it can actually be productive, not lowers it. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. It's not relevant because it applies to both random websites and code repositories equally. Again, please quote me where I claimed that code repositories are not susceptible to this. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance You've demonstrated both of these, so it is just statement of fact. "you moron" this you? JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit Ironic, you're the only one who has said those words. Another strawman. At no point have I supported just trusting anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 2 points 6 months ago (4 children) get ratiod fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago Not you, but some advice(?). permalink fedilink source parent [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -4 points 6 months ago* (2 children) All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Doesn't change that this ^ is a fact you can't refute, so I'm correct. Your entire argument is strawman arguing against claims that I've never made and name calling. You're basically just arguing with yourself. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krudler@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 child) You can't tell after getting completely obliterated by downvotes and repeatedly rebutted that you're the one in weeds? Clueless much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago And yet my point was never refuted permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cypher@aussie.zone 9 points 6 months ago (12 children) It doesn't matter if the software is delivered via a publishers website or via a package repository if the supply chain has been compromised. Clearly you're not aware of any recent cyber security news or you'd know that the NPM package manager has suffered numerous attacks: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/shai-hulud-malware-infects-500-npm-packages-leaks-secrets-on-github/ I guess you should trust NPM though because its a package manager! You're just encouraging people to blindly use and trust repos with no understanding of the pros or cons, and without understanding how you can verify and test software yourself to reduce risk. This is especially an easy conversaion when we talk closed source vs open source and you failed to even bring that up. Repeating nonsense claims instead of actually considering the entirely reasonable question only highlights that you're victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect. You could have had a conversation and learned something from an actual cyber security professional and instead you've acted like a clown. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago* (11 children) ItS nOt PeRfEcT sO iT cAnT bE bEtTeR Cope. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (10 children) hehehe seethe about it clown permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (9 children) You're so close to understanding. All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Please quote me where I claimed that software repositories are less vulnerable to supply chain attacks. You were wrong about something, constructed a strawman argument, and are grasping at straws to save face. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (8 children) rAnDoM wEbSiTeS permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago* (7 children) That's what I thought. Are you done speed-running through as many logical fallacies as possible? Multiple strawman arguments, no true scottsman/appeal to authority, name calling/ad hominem. You wouldn't have to resort to these if you were just correct, like me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (6 children) Since you don't understand, you lowered the level of the conversation and now I'm going to continue on that level because you get what you deserve. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance - in a field I am a professional in and have given reasoned and valid advice on. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. Given a real world example you simply ignore it "but search results" eat shit you moron. The legitimate website was popped so "rAnDoM wEbSiTeS" aren't a factor or relevant. JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children) Addressing logical fallacies elevates the discussion to place where it can actually be productive, not lowers it. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. It's not relevant because it applies to both random websites and code repositories equally. Again, please quote me where I claimed that code repositories are not susceptible to this. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance You've demonstrated both of these, so it is just statement of fact. "you moron" this you? JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit Ironic, you're the only one who has said those words. Another strawman. At no point have I supported just trusting anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 2 points 6 months ago (4 children) get ratiod fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago Not you, but some advice(?). permalink fedilink source parent [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -4 points 6 months ago* (2 children) All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Doesn't change that this ^ is a fact you can't refute, so I'm correct. Your entire argument is strawman arguing against claims that I've never made and name calling. You're basically just arguing with yourself. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krudler@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 child) You can't tell after getting completely obliterated by downvotes and repeatedly rebutted that you're the one in weeds? Clueless much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago And yet my point was never refuted permalink fedilink source parent
[+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago* (11 children) ItS nOt PeRfEcT sO iT cAnT bE bEtTeR Cope. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (10 children) hehehe seethe about it clown permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (9 children) You're so close to understanding. All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Please quote me where I claimed that software repositories are less vulnerable to supply chain attacks. You were wrong about something, constructed a strawman argument, and are grasping at straws to save face. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (8 children) rAnDoM wEbSiTeS permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago* (7 children) That's what I thought. Are you done speed-running through as many logical fallacies as possible? Multiple strawman arguments, no true scottsman/appeal to authority, name calling/ad hominem. You wouldn't have to resort to these if you were just correct, like me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (6 children) Since you don't understand, you lowered the level of the conversation and now I'm going to continue on that level because you get what you deserve. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance - in a field I am a professional in and have given reasoned and valid advice on. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. Given a real world example you simply ignore it "but search results" eat shit you moron. The legitimate website was popped so "rAnDoM wEbSiTeS" aren't a factor or relevant. JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children) Addressing logical fallacies elevates the discussion to place where it can actually be productive, not lowers it. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. It's not relevant because it applies to both random websites and code repositories equally. Again, please quote me where I claimed that code repositories are not susceptible to this. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance You've demonstrated both of these, so it is just statement of fact. "you moron" this you? JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit Ironic, you're the only one who has said those words. Another strawman. At no point have I supported just trusting anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 2 points 6 months ago (4 children) get ratiod fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago Not you, but some advice(?). permalink fedilink source parent [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -4 points 6 months ago* (2 children) All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Doesn't change that this ^ is a fact you can't refute, so I'm correct. Your entire argument is strawman arguing against claims that I've never made and name calling. You're basically just arguing with yourself. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krudler@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 child) You can't tell after getting completely obliterated by downvotes and repeatedly rebutted that you're the one in weeds? Clueless much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago And yet my point was never refuted permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (10 children) hehehe seethe about it clown permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (9 children) You're so close to understanding. All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Please quote me where I claimed that software repositories are less vulnerable to supply chain attacks. You were wrong about something, constructed a strawman argument, and are grasping at straws to save face. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (8 children) rAnDoM wEbSiTeS permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago* (7 children) That's what I thought. Are you done speed-running through as many logical fallacies as possible? Multiple strawman arguments, no true scottsman/appeal to authority, name calling/ad hominem. You wouldn't have to resort to these if you were just correct, like me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (6 children) Since you don't understand, you lowered the level of the conversation and now I'm going to continue on that level because you get what you deserve. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance - in a field I am a professional in and have given reasoned and valid advice on. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. Given a real world example you simply ignore it "but search results" eat shit you moron. The legitimate website was popped so "rAnDoM wEbSiTeS" aren't a factor or relevant. JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children) Addressing logical fallacies elevates the discussion to place where it can actually be productive, not lowers it. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. It's not relevant because it applies to both random websites and code repositories equally. Again, please quote me where I claimed that code repositories are not susceptible to this. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance You've demonstrated both of these, so it is just statement of fact. "you moron" this you? JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit Ironic, you're the only one who has said those words. Another strawman. At no point have I supported just trusting anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 2 points 6 months ago (4 children) get ratiod fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago Not you, but some advice(?). permalink fedilink source parent [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -4 points 6 months ago* (2 children) All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Doesn't change that this ^ is a fact you can't refute, so I'm correct. Your entire argument is strawman arguing against claims that I've never made and name calling. You're basically just arguing with yourself. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krudler@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 child) You can't tell after getting completely obliterated by downvotes and repeatedly rebutted that you're the one in weeds? Clueless much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago And yet my point was never refuted permalink fedilink source parent
[+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (9 children) You're so close to understanding. All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Please quote me where I claimed that software repositories are less vulnerable to supply chain attacks. You were wrong about something, constructed a strawman argument, and are grasping at straws to save face. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (8 children) rAnDoM wEbSiTeS permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago* (7 children) That's what I thought. Are you done speed-running through as many logical fallacies as possible? Multiple strawman arguments, no true scottsman/appeal to authority, name calling/ad hominem. You wouldn't have to resort to these if you were just correct, like me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (6 children) Since you don't understand, you lowered the level of the conversation and now I'm going to continue on that level because you get what you deserve. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance - in a field I am a professional in and have given reasoned and valid advice on. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. Given a real world example you simply ignore it "but search results" eat shit you moron. The legitimate website was popped so "rAnDoM wEbSiTeS" aren't a factor or relevant. JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children) Addressing logical fallacies elevates the discussion to place where it can actually be productive, not lowers it. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. It's not relevant because it applies to both random websites and code repositories equally. Again, please quote me where I claimed that code repositories are not susceptible to this. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance You've demonstrated both of these, so it is just statement of fact. "you moron" this you? JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit Ironic, you're the only one who has said those words. Another strawman. At no point have I supported just trusting anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 2 points 6 months ago (4 children) get ratiod fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago Not you, but some advice(?). permalink fedilink source parent [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -4 points 6 months ago* (2 children) All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Doesn't change that this ^ is a fact you can't refute, so I'm correct. Your entire argument is strawman arguing against claims that I've never made and name calling. You're basically just arguing with yourself. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krudler@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 child) You can't tell after getting completely obliterated by downvotes and repeatedly rebutted that you're the one in weeds? Clueless much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago And yet my point was never refuted permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (8 children) rAnDoM wEbSiTeS permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago* (7 children) That's what I thought. Are you done speed-running through as many logical fallacies as possible? Multiple strawman arguments, no true scottsman/appeal to authority, name calling/ad hominem. You wouldn't have to resort to these if you were just correct, like me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (6 children) Since you don't understand, you lowered the level of the conversation and now I'm going to continue on that level because you get what you deserve. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance - in a field I am a professional in and have given reasoned and valid advice on. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. Given a real world example you simply ignore it "but search results" eat shit you moron. The legitimate website was popped so "rAnDoM wEbSiTeS" aren't a factor or relevant. JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children) Addressing logical fallacies elevates the discussion to place where it can actually be productive, not lowers it. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. It's not relevant because it applies to both random websites and code repositories equally. Again, please quote me where I claimed that code repositories are not susceptible to this. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance You've demonstrated both of these, so it is just statement of fact. "you moron" this you? JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit Ironic, you're the only one who has said those words. Another strawman. At no point have I supported just trusting anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 2 points 6 months ago (4 children) get ratiod fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago Not you, but some advice(?). permalink fedilink source parent [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -4 points 6 months ago* (2 children) All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Doesn't change that this ^ is a fact you can't refute, so I'm correct. Your entire argument is strawman arguing against claims that I've never made and name calling. You're basically just arguing with yourself. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krudler@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 child) You can't tell after getting completely obliterated by downvotes and repeatedly rebutted that you're the one in weeds? Clueless much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago And yet my point was never refuted permalink fedilink source parent
[+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -10 points 6 months ago* (7 children) That's what I thought. Are you done speed-running through as many logical fallacies as possible? Multiple strawman arguments, no true scottsman/appeal to authority, name calling/ad hominem. You wouldn't have to resort to these if you were just correct, like me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (6 children) Since you don't understand, you lowered the level of the conversation and now I'm going to continue on that level because you get what you deserve. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance - in a field I am a professional in and have given reasoned and valid advice on. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. Given a real world example you simply ignore it "but search results" eat shit you moron. The legitimate website was popped so "rAnDoM wEbSiTeS" aren't a factor or relevant. JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children) Addressing logical fallacies elevates the discussion to place where it can actually be productive, not lowers it. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. It's not relevant because it applies to both random websites and code repositories equally. Again, please quote me where I claimed that code repositories are not susceptible to this. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance You've demonstrated both of these, so it is just statement of fact. "you moron" this you? JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit Ironic, you're the only one who has said those words. Another strawman. At no point have I supported just trusting anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 2 points 6 months ago (4 children) get ratiod fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago Not you, but some advice(?). permalink fedilink source parent [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -4 points 6 months ago* (2 children) All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Doesn't change that this ^ is a fact you can't refute, so I'm correct. Your entire argument is strawman arguing against claims that I've never made and name calling. You're basically just arguing with yourself. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krudler@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 child) You can't tell after getting completely obliterated by downvotes and repeatedly rebutted that you're the one in weeds? Clueless much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago And yet my point was never refuted permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cypher@aussie.zone 5 points 6 months ago (6 children) Since you don't understand, you lowered the level of the conversation and now I'm going to continue on that level because you get what you deserve. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance - in a field I am a professional in and have given reasoned and valid advice on. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. Given a real world example you simply ignore it "but search results" eat shit you moron. The legitimate website was popped so "rAnDoM wEbSiTeS" aren't a factor or relevant. JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children) Addressing logical fallacies elevates the discussion to place where it can actually be productive, not lowers it. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. It's not relevant because it applies to both random websites and code repositories equally. Again, please quote me where I claimed that code repositories are not susceptible to this. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance You've demonstrated both of these, so it is just statement of fact. "you moron" this you? JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit Ironic, you're the only one who has said those words. Another strawman. At no point have I supported just trusting anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 2 points 6 months ago (4 children) get ratiod fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago Not you, but some advice(?). permalink fedilink source parent [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -4 points 6 months ago* (2 children) All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Doesn't change that this ^ is a fact you can't refute, so I'm correct. Your entire argument is strawman arguing against claims that I've never made and name calling. You're basically just arguing with yourself. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krudler@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 child) You can't tell after getting completely obliterated by downvotes and repeatedly rebutted that you're the one in weeds? Clueless much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago And yet my point was never refuted permalink fedilink source parent
[+] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (5 children) Addressing logical fallacies elevates the discussion to place where it can actually be productive, not lowers it. In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious. It's not relevant because it applies to both random websites and code repositories equally. Again, please quote me where I claimed that code repositories are not susceptible to this. Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance You've demonstrated both of these, so it is just statement of fact. "you moron" this you? JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit Ironic, you're the only one who has said those words. Another strawman. At no point have I supported just trusting anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Cypher@aussie.zone 2 points 6 months ago (4 children) get ratiod fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago Not you, but some advice(?). permalink fedilink source parent [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -4 points 6 months ago* (2 children) All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Doesn't change that this ^ is a fact you can't refute, so I'm correct. Your entire argument is strawman arguing against claims that I've never made and name calling. You're basically just arguing with yourself. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krudler@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 child) You can't tell after getting completely obliterated by downvotes and repeatedly rebutted that you're the one in weeds? Clueless much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago And yet my point was never refuted permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cypher@aussie.zone 2 points 6 months ago (4 children) get ratiod fuckwit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago Not you, but some advice(?). permalink fedilink source parent [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -4 points 6 months ago* (2 children) All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Doesn't change that this ^ is a fact you can't refute, so I'm correct. Your entire argument is strawman arguing against claims that I've never made and name calling. You're basically just arguing with yourself. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krudler@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 child) You can't tell after getting completely obliterated by downvotes and repeatedly rebutted that you're the one in weeds? Clueless much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago And yet my point was never refuted permalink fedilink source parent
[–] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago Not you, but some advice(?). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -4 points 6 months ago* (2 children) All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all. Doesn't change that this ^ is a fact you can't refute, so I'm correct. Your entire argument is strawman arguing against claims that I've never made and name calling. You're basically just arguing with yourself. 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Krudler@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 child) You can't tell after getting completely obliterated by downvotes and repeatedly rebutted that you're the one in weeds? Clueless much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago And yet my point was never refuted permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Krudler@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 child) You can't tell after getting completely obliterated by downvotes and repeatedly rebutted that you're the one in weeds? Clueless much permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago And yet my point was never refuted permalink fedilink source parent
[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago And yet my point was never refuted permalink fedilink source parent