Glad I don’t own any D-Link products

Man, try teaching a freshman comp course in college.

That is distressing.

Judging from recent forum posts, Citrix still installs a hidden server running with privileged access as part of their client software. It’s almost impossible for normal users to remove it.

Wasn’t this the same behavior that got Zoom blocked briefly on macOS a few years ago? https://www.macobserver.com/news/apple-update-remove-zoom/

Would router-blocking the IP addresses provide some protection?

I haven’t let Citrix maleare onto any device I own in decades, since finding that it wasn’t possible to remove their server from a Mac by normal means (it required using terminal to shut down and remove each process individually). I honestly wasn’t aware that anyone outside a particular obscure state agency in Kentucky still uses them.

Either way, you can lay your weary head to rest

Now I want a cup, too. I’ve been surprised that more businesses haven’t used this tactic with posts on TripAdvisor, Yelp, and other ratings sites.

Conservative Christians want a theocracy but suck at governing. Didn’t we already know this?

Arguably, it’s more like someone is able to hide the door altogether and force you to climb through the less-well-secured window. The fact that they can hide the door at all makes its locks meaningless.

I get that this is an inherent problem of security mechanisms in general and not of passkeys in particular. But it still reduces passkeys to just fancy passwords. They’re obviously not any more reliable in practice.

I haven’t either because I don’t see the advantage. Cases like this show that there may not be any.

If The Next Big Thing can be sidelined by simply blocking its login option, that’s a problem. Not only is it not secure, it’s not even reliably usable.

Wait, haven’t some sources been touting how ultra-secure and unbreakable passkeys are? And now we find that they’re susceptible to comparatively simple MITM attacks?

So has this been addressed in OS updates?