Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday April 25 2017, @10:24PM   Printer-friendly
from the no-consequences- dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

More than three months after being informed about remotely exploitable vulnerabilities in 25 router models, Linksys is[sic] yet to issue patches to remedy them.

Researchers at IOActive Labs wrote that they had informed Linksys of 10 flaws on 17 January, six of which could be remotely exploited by unauthenticated people.

But as of last week, all that Linksys had done was to notify users through a public post and suggest workarounds until patched firmware was ready.

Given Linksys' inactivity, the IOActive Labs researchers said they were holding off on providing the full technical details of the flaws until patched firmware was ready for download.

Shit, even we can manage a fix in six months...

Source: http://www.itwire.com/security/77772-three-months-on,-no-linksys-router-patches-for-remote-holes.html


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:36PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:36PM (#500195)

    My objection is perfectly valid. The whole point of including sic is for the conveyor of information to say: "Hey, I know this is wrong, but it isn't my fault". If there is nothing to worry about in the source, there is no reason to include. Otherwise, we should just throw it around everywhere when we quote anything, as sort of a poor man's hash to authenticate quoted material.

  • (Score: 1) by fyngyrz on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:43PM

    by fyngyrz (6567) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @05:43PM (#500203) Journal

    No, the whole point of [sic] – literally – is to say "this is literal as per the source."

    You have a mistaken conception of what it means, insisting it is an indication of error, which it is not, so you're making a mistake in interpreting what it's telling you. Your attention has been called to the fact that this is precisely what the source said. That's all.

    There are many reasons one might do this. [sic] covers them all. That is what it is for.

  • (Score: 1) by fyngyrz on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:08PM

    by fyngyrz (6567) on Wednesday April 26 2017, @06:08PM (#500233) Journal

    Otherwise, we should just throw it around everywhere when we quote anything, as sort of a poor man's hash to authenticate quoted material.

    Sorry, should have covered this.

    Here's the thing. Suppose someone says, exactly:

    I ain't no engineer

    Then this thought, for some reason, is to be presented in a blurb that is going to be edited. There are several approaches to this, all perfectly valid.

    Direct, without indication, simply allowing the colloquialism to pass unremarked:

    I ain't no engineer

    Direct, with indication and clearly no intent to mischaracterize the quoted speaker, but rather to be clear that this was precisely how the speaker expressed the thought. This is particularly appropriate in times like ours where partial and out-of-context and intentional misquoting are not just extant, but rampant:

    I ain't no[sic] engineer

    Using indicated substitution:

    I [am not an] engineer

    Referential:

    S/he indicated that s/he was not an engineer.

    As to misspellings:

    I am a programer[sic]

    Here, there is an obvious misspelling, and your attention is being called to it (see the theme? It's about focusing your attention.) That might have been a typo. It might have been placement of a word the author did not know the spelling of. But what it wasn't, was a misspelling the editor made. The editor is telling you "yes, I/we know this is misspelled, but this is how it was written." This is appropriate, and non-condemning, because generally speaking, it is an editor's job to notice such things and make decisions about them. Specifically in quotations, if corrections of errors are not to be made, then [sic] calls your attention to the fact that the original was left intact intentionally. Not that the error exists, because that fact is obvious on its face; but that the error is not that of the editor.

    None of this is to say you can't intend to use it punitively or exclusively to point out what you consider to be errors. You can. Many do. But that is not in any way a validation of the idea that this is what it is for, and so, how it should always be taken. Therein lies your error.