• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    73 months ago

    As far as I’m aware, the exploit requires someone to try printing using a malicious networked printer. It is a vulnerability, yes, but it affects essentially nobody. Who tries manually printing something on a server exposed to the internet?

    Although for local network access, like in a corporation using Linux on desktops, the vulnerability is an actual risk.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      23 months ago

      I was thinking embedded clients would be the bigger issue. Stuff like POS machines, that sort of thing.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        43 months ago

        Even there, if the stars align (network access, cups being used), you still need to convince the user of the device to switch printer.

      • @CodeGameEat
        link
        English
        13 months ago

        Ive worked with thermal printers used in POS, and usually they use a different protocol than notmal printing so you’re not using cups (basically you send “commands” with text and its position). But i am sure there are some exceptions…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      13 months ago

      Even if you computer is not exposed to the internet: are you certain that every other device on the network is safe (even on public wifi)? Would you immediately raise the alarm if you saw a second printer in the list with the same name, or something like “Print to file”? I think I personally could fall for that under the right circumstances.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        13 months ago

        That was a possibility with this exploit, but realistically that doesn’t affect nearly as many people as “All GNU/Linux systems”.