undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAnalemma_9y ago0 comments

If you previously establish that the vulnerability was introduced by a third party, then "backdoor" might be an OK term afterward - after the context has been introuced.

In an example without context (like, a headline), "backdoor" strongly implies that it was built by the vendor. I have to disagree with you and concur with the other commenters saying this was a very misleading choice of words by Kaspersky. They should have just said "malware".

0 comments

eriknstr9y ago

I agree. My first reaction when I read the headline was, I thought Apple had put it there, which I found disturbing seeing as how Apple has publicly spoken out against backdoors. I think a better title would be something like "Sophisticated OS X Backdooring Malware Discovered". That would make it clear that the backdoor is not present in the binaries shipped by Apple.

mseri9y ago

Same here. Malicious backdoor or rootkit backdoor would have been more appropriate

wlesieutre9y ago

I make the same association. A door is part of a building, and is put there during construction (initial release) or in owner-planned renovations (software updates).

I've never heard of someone breaking into a building by cutting a hole into a wall to install their own entry door that they have a key to, but that's the scenario this "OS X backdoor" is describing.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse