Hacker News Reader

I’m honestly impressed that they managed to screw this up somehow.

Setting up defense in depth, gaps, logical blocking etc is a standard practice for malware sandboxing. The entire purpose is to prepare for what you can’t foresee.

This isn’t a new practice and I agree that this makes me wonder if they’re fit for this kind of research.

View on HN

did you read the post? The model found new Zero-days to bypass existing blocks. Thats the point. Do you still think you can build a containment facility, which is still physically connected to the internet (only firewalled off or whatever) and contain it, if it can discover new unknown vulnerabilities in your whole plan?

Yes.

You factor this in when creating environments for malware research.

Defense in depth is one way.

Logical blocks on the network is another.

Just claiming “0-Day” isn’t really an excuse.

> which is still physically connected to the internet

I mean that's the point. Why was it connected to the internet at all and just firewalled off and not completely airgapped?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com