Hacker News Reader

Of course they pass system integrity. The whole point of the thing is not "it should be secure", it's "the user has not messed with it so we control it".

View on HN

If the device is "insecure", doesn't that mean you - as a user - can exploit one of those insecurities to "mess with" the device without system integrity being aware?

Or are you saying the device is insecure BUT has no local privilege escalations you can take advantage of as a user?

It could have RCE but not privilige escalation. But I don't buy it, because 5 years without kernel patches is at least 5 escalation exploits being written by the an llm in 5 minutes

It means the spyware information flow and Google's ability to remotely modify the device have not been disabled.

Well, yes? The law says that the bank should do the thing and the bank does the thing to the best of it's ability, given what people usually work there.

> the bank does the thing to the best of it's ability

No they don't. At best, they do a cost-effective proxy for what should be done.

Oh, you have no idea. It's not even about costs. In a 200 year old company the level of corporate disfunction and the average skill level of people is something else entirely. Nothing ever happens unless the regulator holds a blowtorch wired to a timer to the CEO's ass.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com