Google is your friend, took me 5 seconds to research his claim...
I think you missed my point. It was a rhetorical question, since the data was clearly not "rendered useless" by Nvidia due to the fact that the hackers obviously had a backup. Even the link you posted includes an image of a post from the hackers claiming the data was backed up and safe, countering the title's claim that "Nvidia successfully hacked back." It can't really be considered a success if the hackers still have the data. Of course, one might not have noticed that if they only spent 5 seconds to read the headline.
And in fact, a few days following that, the hackers publicly released a portion of the data including the DLSS source code and credentials for over 70,000 Nvidia employees, among other things, proving that Nvidia didn't do much aside from possibly inconveniencing them for an afternoon. Yet the writer of this article seems to still be following the narrative that they somehow re-secured their data. The hackers were also claiming that they had more valuable data, like hardware schematics and firmware.
Also, google is not your friend. They are one of the world's largest data harvesting and advertising companies, and you shouldn't let them trick you into thinking otherwise.
An Open source makes code less secure how exactly? Can't understand how someone could think hiding potential flaws from eyes that could recognize and fix them is more secure somehow. And cant understand how keeping it behind a flawed security system (all are) so only someone determined enough to break the security and law and steal the code, so they can recognize the flaws and exploit them, is safer. Also, an open source allows for updates after the company stops support. There is no valid argument for closed source software in my opinion.
You're not safe until you can read the code that you're executing and understand it yourself. Period. Full stop. A good compromise is letting millions of neckbeards scroll through GitHub and wait till they trust it before you use software.
While I wouldn't say open-source is necessarily less secure, it's also questionable whether it's all that much more secure. While availability of the source code might make it easier for researchers to hunt for potential vulnerabilities, it could also make it easier for those looking for exploits to find and use them without ever reporting them. And if many different contributors are working on a piece of software, there may also be the possibility for an organization to incorporate obfuscated security holes that could fly under the radar, and that might not be easy to notice when examining the code. Many larger pieces of software can contain millions, or even tens of millions of lines of code, so any one person is not likely to have a firm grasp of how it all fits together.
In any case, closed-source software is less about ensuring security than it is about making it harder for competitors to copy it. Which, if a company wants to stay ahead of the competition, can make some sense.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram