the_wizard_man said:
fordy said:
the_wizard_man said:
fordy said:
o_O.Q said:
The funny thing about sony being accused over this stuff is the assumptions made by people that other networks are guaranteed to be more secure.
|
If proper maintenance is made to the other networks, then yes, they would be more secure than Sony's.
|
Sony's had proper maintenance so no, you are just assuming again
|
For gods sake, will people read the damn articles posted before spouting their stupidity?
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/trixter/
“If Sony is watching this channel they should know that running an older version of Apache on a RedHat server with known vulnerabilities is not wise, especially when that server freely reports its version and it’s the auth[entication] server”
Sony knew this guy was on to something. Why do you think he's being questioned now?
|
Because he's an ex-con with the skills to do the crime
|
You didn't read the article.
He's a WHISTLEBLOWER. He sees vulnerabilities and reports them. He was jailed for shedding light on such vulnerabilities. He wasn't exploiting them.
I'll let you in oon another piece of the article:
"The authentication server he mentioned in the chats was running Apache 2.2.15, which was superseded in June 2010"
An update to Apache was available for almost a year. So where is this routine maintenance that you believe Sony had?