the_wizard_man said:
fordy said:
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"The authentication server he mentioned in the chats was running Apache 2.2.15, which was superseded in June 2010"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?
|
Nowhere did I see the article state he told sony about it just that he was discussing it, which could actually make him an accomplish, either way he did time and has the skills to do it, thats all people need to question some one, I'd be concerned if they didn't question him
|
So if you have the skills to do it, you're automatically accused of being an accomplice? Is that what you're trying to say? Do you honestly listen to yourself when you spout this nonsense, or do you just switch off?
you didn't take into regard that the fix to Apache was 11 MONTHS OLD. There is no excuse for trying to justify such a lapse in maintenance, and your attempt to defend this position puts your ethics in serious doubt.
