43
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2024
43 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
5324 readers
446 users here now
A community for everything relating to the linux operating system
Also check out !linux_memes@programming.dev
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
As other articles pointed out, this is only a problem if:
Only the last one is potentially problematic for more people, and even then, the number of people using Linux is still very small. Some libraries don't allow printing or only printing via their computers.
It's good to know this flaw exists, but it doesn't seem like a particularly concerning attack vector.
This is more likely than you think. There's more computers than you realise on the average network. Many aren't updated and have vulnerabilities. If there's one malware on one machine on your network, that means a malicious actor is on your network.
Common exemples :
But again, most people aren't running Linux, and for people who are, they're likely more conscientious about connectivity and security patches.
I agree that most people aren't paying attention to every little thing, but the likelihood of someone invading your home network for a tiny payoff, especially when it requires the rare activity of printing something, is probably low-risk.
Exactly. This is bad, for the 0.3% of the computing population that use Linux AND have CUPS installed AND actually print things.
Not exactly a prime target, compared to literally almost anything else. If I were going all-in on something after having gained access to someone's local network, I'm 100% in on any exploit that lets me use an infostealer trojan to steal your session cookies, not fiddling around and hoping you print something.
(Patch your shit anyways, but there's no need to freak out.)