• const_void
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    Not a “back door” by my definition. The title of the article makes it sound like these operating systems have had a back door built-in in and it was only discovered now.

    • a_Ha
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      right ! … and this makes “arstechnica[.]com” clickbaity and it’s source “intezer” as well.
      wtf, are some security groups run like inside the Dilbert comic strip ?

      Edit after @CHEFKOCH@lemmy.ml comments below and above mine :
      Oups, my bad, it says :
      Backdoor for (W… and) Linux …
      it does not say :
      Backdoor in (W… and) Linux …

      • CHEF-KOCHOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 years ago

        It is not clickbait, the definition of a backdoor is clear. If a software package got compromised without that you’re aware of it and can still install it. This was the case.

        Please do not call everything which does not fit into your thinking or world clickbait, it is not.

        • a_Ha
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 years ago

          understood, corrected and upvoted

    • grapemix
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      “Intezer said that may be an indication the file masqueraded as a type script app spread after being sneaked into the npm JavaScript repository.”

      The article doesn’t say the developers leave the back door.

    • CHEF-KOCHOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      Disagree, it says - for - not - in - … there is a difference.