this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2026
1 points (100.0% liked)

cybersecurity

6049 readers
8 users here now

An umbrella community for all things cybersecurity / infosec. News, research, questions, are all welcome!

Community Rules

Enjoy!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cypher@aussie.zone 0 points 19 hours ago (1 children)
[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 0 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

That's what I thought.

Are you done speed-running through as many logical fallacies as possible? Multiple strawman arguments, no true scottsman/appeal to authority, name calling/ad hominem. You wouldn't have to resort to these if you were just correct, like me.

[–] Cypher@aussie.zone 0 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Since you don't understand, you lowered the level of the conversation and now I'm going to continue on that level because you get what you deserve.

Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance - in a field I am a professional in and have given reasoned and valid advice on.

In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious.

Given a real world example you simply ignore it "but search results" eat shit you moron. The legitimate website was popped so "rAnDoM wEbSiTeS" aren't a factor or relevant.

JuSt TrUsT iT bRo - nonsense uttered by an absolute fuckwit

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 0 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Addressing logical fallacies elevates the discussion to place where it can actually be productive, not lowers it.

In multiple replies you failed to even attempt to address the elephant in the room; that you have zero fucking clue how to verify that applications delivered from a repo aren't malicious.

It's not relevant because it applies to both random websites and code repositories equally. Again, please quote me where I claimed that code repositories are not susceptible to this.

Ad hominem is a problem now when you started accusing me of lacking reading comprehension aka stupidity and then ignorance

You've demonstrated both of these, so it is just statement of fact. "you moron" this you?

[–] Cypher@aussie.zone 0 points 19 hours ago (2 children)
[–] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 11 hours ago

Not you, but some advice(?).

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 0 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

All of the flaws that come with supply chain attacks on repos also apply to random websites, plus even more flaws that repositories are not as susceptible to or do not apply to repos at all.

Doesn't change that this ^ is a fact you can't refute, so I'm correct. Your entire argument is strawman arguing against claims that I've never made and name calling. You're basically just arguing with yourself. 🤷

[–] Krudler@lemmy.world 0 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

You can't tell after getting completely obliterated by downvotes and repeatedly rebutted that you're the one in weeds? Clueless much

[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 0 points 12 hours ago

And yet my point was never refuted