News VLC Media Player Suffers From Schrodinger's Vulnerability

Gillerer

Distinguished
Sep 23, 2013
361
81
18,940
The Schrödinger's cat thought experiment was devised for the purpose of ridiculing/criticizing the quantum theory: The idea that a living creature is both alive and dead at the same time is ludicrous and obviously impossible.

Used for computer vulnerabilities, the analog would be that it's ridiculous to describe a flaw as both existing and not existing at the same time. Proper way would be to say that "we don't know" whether the flaw exists.
 

bit_user

Polypheme
Ambassador
Used for computer vulnerabilities, the analog would be that it's ridiculous to describe a flaw as both existing and not existing at the same time. Proper way would be to say that "we don't know" whether the flaw exists.
This article is garbage.

It wasn't until I reached the end that I realized its author had coined the name "Schrodinger's Vulnerability". As you say, this is an inaccurate analogy and obviously misleading.

For anyone bothered by such drivel, I encourage you to use the "Contact Us" link and voice your disapproval: https://forums.tomshardware.com/misc/contact

Or send emails to the editors listed here: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/about-us,4260.html

Include a link to the article in question, and politely voice your concerns (e.g. misleading title, mis-characterization of the actual issue). We can only hope for change if we're willing to speak up. Don't assume anyone of consequence is reading the forums - we have to reach out to them and hope they listen to enough voices.
 

bit_user

Polypheme
Ambassador
About a week ago, the LinuxSecurity staff started tracking a security issue related to VLC, the popular open source media player. As the week went on, it wasn’t completely clear what was fact and what was fiction. I decided to find out. I reached out to Jean-Baptiste Kempf, and we had a really interesting conversation on this topic. Check out what I learned:
I think you shouldn't really promote your content on this site. But, just from that abstract I'm confident it's better-written and deeper coverage than Mr. Mott's pitiful piece.