Sure. I’m just saying that if a company is caught putting spyware into their products, I’m not going to trust them to suddenly fix it. If they cared, they should’ve caught this with internal QA.
So either they’re negligent or malicious. If the former, they’ll probably be negligent again. If the latter, they’ll be more sneaky next time. Either way I don’t trust them.
My point is that we know there’s spyware on the image, so we should suspect malware elsewhere as well. Until the hardware is audited, we should assume that hardware is compromised as well.
Because the issue is what they did find. If they hadn’t found it there would be no article.
Sure. I’m just saying that if a company is caught putting spyware into their products, I’m not going to trust them to suddenly fix it. If they cared, they should’ve caught this with internal QA.
So either they’re negligent or malicious. If the former, they’ll probably be negligent again. If the latter, they’ll be more sneaky next time. Either way I don’t trust them.
I understand. I’m just not sure why you’re replying to me with this.
My point is that we know there’s spyware on the image, so we should suspect malware elsewhere as well. Until the hardware is audited, we should assume that hardware is compromised as well.