The method of exploitation doesn't change anything, what difference does it make how you got a complete compromise?
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @HarperMitchell
Hah, just redefine security as something nobody cares about, "It's not a complete compromise unless they can eat the sandwich I put in the refrigerator last night". Now a remote ring0 is worthless, checkmate hackers.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @HarperMitchell
You said I didn't understand that there was a difference between access for one minute and access for three months. Rebooting every minute is ridiculous, so that scenario doesn't make sense - give me a realistic scenario where I couldn't just adjust my behaviour to compensate.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @HarperMitchell
That doesn't make sense, for all you know a target is going to be reimaged in the next thirty seconds - the lower bound is always infinitesimal. There's a possibility you will have to compromise again if you are detected or ejected before your goal is achieved... so what?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @HarperMitchell
Sure, but no attacker's objective is simply to survive a reboot, they want access to some data. If you detect them, now you can reboot instead of reimage, and then they can attempt recompromise... so what did you achieve? This is why I think "persistence" is buzzwordy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Umm.. because what else are you going to do if not reboot on detection, mandatory rolling hourly reboots?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.