"amicus_curious" <[email protected]> writes: > "Mart van de Wege" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> "amicus_curious" <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> "David Kastrup" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>> news:[email protected]... >>>> "amicus_curious" <[email protected]> writes: >>>> >>>>> If it fails early, it gets returned to the store or to the >>>>> manufacturer for credit. >>>> >>>> If your whole computing centre gets compromised because a packet logger >>>> could be inserted into the router, return to the store is your least >>>> problem. Being able to determine possible scope of a security breach is >>>> certainly important. >>>> >>> You create a whole lot of hypothetical situations, but people buy >>> these things at Sam's Club for $35 and they work just fine. What >>> compromise has there ever been that allowed someone to put a "packet >>> logger" into the firmware of such a thing? Who would bother? >>> >> Spammers who like to build botnets out of domestic PCs for example. >> > Do you know of any instance where the botnet was built by compromising > the user's router firmware? That is pretty farfetched. > Yes, and executable e-mails were once considered to be 'purely theoretical'.
I'm sorry, but threat evaluation is just a *tad* more than 'is this being exploited yet?' Mart -- "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes." --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
