this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
163 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37735 readers
55 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

His claims are quickly debunked in the article, as the true reason is, obviously, protecting their IP and subscription model

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 16 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It wasn't quite that; there was a buffer overflow in the code that was talking to the ink cartridge. So a malicious ink cartridge could in fact take over your printer. Of course, a web page you visit could in fact take over your browser and that's a much more realistic threat vector, and somehow we've survived all this time without limiting ourselves to HP-sponsored and security-assured web pages with a healthy cut of profit going to HP from every visit.

[–] Overzeetop 15 points 10 months ago (2 children)

in the code that was talking to the ink cartridge.

So the flaw is in the printer or driver, and HP has just admitted to shipping an insecure, nay negligently dangerous, product to consumers?

[–] Banzai51@midwest.social 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

In the 90s, they shipped recovery CDs with viruses baked in. Knowingly shipping destructive code and hardware is kinda HP's thing.

[–] anytimesoon@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I've not heard about this. Does anyone have a link to share? Can't find one myself

[–] Banzai51@midwest.social 1 points 10 months ago

This was 95ish. We were under strict orders not to confirm it. HP worked hard to keep it under wraps. Now layer on the fact the web was still in its infancy, you likely won't find a whole lot about it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 3 points 10 months ago

well that makes a bit more sense, thanks for clearing it up. Still stupid, but not as bad as I had been lead to believe.