94
CPUID site hijacked to serve malware instead of HWMonitor downloads
(www.theregister.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2026
94 points (100.0% liked)
cybersecurity
6108 readers
13 users here now
An umbrella community for all things cybersecurity / infosec. News, research, questions, are all welcome!
Community Rules
- Be kind
- Limit promotional activities
- Non-cybersecurity posts should be redirected to other communities within infosec.pub.
Enjoy!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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…
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
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.
ItS nOt PeRfEcT sO iT cAnT bE bEtTeR
Cope.
hehehe seethe about it clown
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.
rAnDoM wEbSiTeS
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.
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
Addressing logical fallacies elevates the discussion to place where it can actually be productive, not lowers it.
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.
You've demonstrated both of these, so it is just statement of fact. "you moron" this you?
Ironic, you're the only one who has said those words. Another strawman. At no point have I supported just trusting anything.
get ratiod fuckwit
Not you, but some advice(?).
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. 🤷
You can't tell after getting completely obliterated by downvotes and repeatedly rebutted that you're the one in weeds? Clueless much
And yet my point was never refuted