I did the research before commenting. Clearly you didn't. Available resources doesn't just mean it exists on the planet. The situation is much more complicated than you have the capacity to grasp apparently.

You are assuming an infinite supply of natural resources required to produce RAM. It isn't just production capacity in terms of labor, there is also not enough natural resources available to manufacture RAM in unlimited quantities.

That matters quite a bit on who is at the party and what kind of party of it is, now, doesn't it? I don't know what kind of parties you get invited to, if any, but the Slashdot comment section could never be confused with any party I have ever attended.

If you want everyone to have a bio page who wants one there is already anti-social media to solve that "problem". Your comment has the appearance of being made by someone who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works.

If I had a Wikipedia page I would insist it be deleted. Wikipedia is good for facts, so science articles and that sort of thing makes sense. Too many people think if they read it on Wikipedia it must be true, and it is far too easy for a bad actor to make changes that spread misinformation and malign ones character. They are trying to fight the onslaught of misinformation and disinformation, and anyone who is against their efforts to do that tells me everything I need to know about them.

Your post has the appearance of being written by someone who hasn't even read the summary (or understood if they did.) It quite explicitly states that their concern isn't more available information, it is the proliferation of misinformation and their inability to keep that in check. They would rather have fewer articles that are more accurate than more articles that are likely to be less accurate. It's a trade-off based on reason and logic. If you want to know more about not particularly notable people and aren't concerned with truth you can just go to their twitter, Tik Tok, etc. No need for a wikipedia page.

I'm not going to waste my time defending against your strawman attack. I never said "a successful exploit cannot be detected", I said that not all exploits are detected and this one is unlikely to be detected. Since you don't understand that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence any further proof that you lack basic reasoning skills is completely superfluous. Now seriously, you showed that you have some knowledge (but lack a lot of other skills that would qualify you to make the strong claim without having any actual evidence, or that you posses the basic reasoning skills necessary to determine if it is correct.) Don't confuse the fact that I acknowledged that you have a basic understanding that with any indication that your analysis is correct. Off you go now ...

So you will take the lack of information as proof something didn't happen, when by definition a successful exploit cannot be detected. I concede that you have a lot of security knowledge, but your basic reasoning skills and grasp of the English language are subpar.

Your apology is accepted.

Keep telling yourself that. Off you go now ...

OK. Now I'm convinced you know what you are talking about. Next time start with that instead of "butts I'ze da qualzified infosec guy" along with making a bunch of stupid statements that show you don't understand basic English.

I agree that ICE Agents should pay for their crimes, but don't you think you execution for insubordination might be taking it a bit too far? It seems like a couple of decades in prison for their treason should be enough. The prisoners will take it from there.

He is pretty self-centered, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say "almost all of the time".

"you tried to claim someone could plug in a network cable...to a server in a secure datacenter, during a few -second reboot window where they'd already have physical access to plug in a malicious boot USB"

1. It doesn't have to plug in to the server. It just needs to be able to send ICMP packets that can reach the server. 2. It can be plugged in at any time outside of the window, you don't have to plug the device in while it is rebooting 3. A boot USB wouldn't work because the vulnerable code has already executed by the time EUFI tries to boot. 4. USB boot is a much more time consuming approach to hack the server in general, since the attacker would need to change the boot options at the console and then change them back, and in between boot the USB based tools (e.g. Kali) and do any actual hacking, which requires skills. The console is generally not anywhere near the server. The opportunity windows for being caught is much bigger. 5. "Secure Datacenter" doesn't mean anything when the people with access to the physical network are the ones who are doing the device installation, and those people don't need to have *any* hacking skills.

This hack allows a bad actor to hack the system simply by having access to a switch for a moment (they can hide a small EPS32 or similar device behind it that will go unnoticed until it is too late), and then it occurs without any way to trace who did the hack, or even that the hack occurred.

If someone told you that you are a "qualified infosec professional" they lied to you, and you should seek a refund.

You keep trying this argument from authority thing, while objectively proving that you have no idea what you are talking about. For the record, that is how to use the word "objectively" in a sentence. I don't doubt that you did well in the National Language Arts Special Olympics, and I might even believe that you got the highest score on the short bus, but when you start playing with people in a more advanced league you will find that the game is different. It isn't just that you are trying to play in a different league, you literally don't know the rules. Off you go now ...