94
CPUID site hijacked to serve malware instead of HWMonitor downloads (www.theregister.com)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/cybersecurity@infosec.pub
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -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
    •
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    rAnDoM wEbSiTeS

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [+] -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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [+] -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
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    get ratiod fuckwit

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -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
    •