News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Flame is Lame .

Re:Flame is Lame by brunnsbe on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @08:21AM (#4100045)
Who said that Flame was Lame? I haven't stumbled on that much critique about Flame.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Flame is Lame by mikkohypponen on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @08:36AM (#4100099)
Some examples:

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/flame-malware-m... "The hype surrounding Flame may be partially the result of the ITU"

http://www.thetechherald.com/articles/Is-the-hype-surroundin... "None of the methods of this malware are particularly new."

http://xato.net/malware/flame-is-kind-of-lame/ "It’s just not that impressive as far as features go. In fact, 10 years ago it really wouldn’t have been that impressive."

Mikko

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Flame is Lame by bleusink on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @08:31AM (#4100080)
I think it's a reply to this article: http://xato.net/malware/flame-is-kind-of-lame/

(discussed on HN here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4087914)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Flame is Lame by mxxx on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @08:25AM (#4100057)
yeah, can't say that i have either. most of what i've read about it has been somewhat in awe of the complexity of the thing.
[ Parent | on HN ]