• squaresinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      Especially considering what’s classified as a vulnerability.

      The vulnerability on the switch let’s you execute unsigned code in user space, no kernel access or even hardware acceleration.

      On the steam deck (like on any PC) that’s nit called a vulnerability but “running a program”. It’s literally the main use case.

      • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        And on Switch, it’s forbidden typically. Which is part of why people advocate for the Steam Deck instead. From Nintendo’s perspective, this very much is a vulnerability. It’s just not leading to custom firmware or ROM dumps from what I understand, so it’s not even close to the most significant vulnerability.

        • squaresinger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          That is true, of course. But that’s a vulnerability from Nintendo’s perspective, not from a customer’s perspective. As in, if this exploit gets improved on, it might lead to people running unlicensed or pirated software on the switch, thus potentially hurting Nintendo.

          It’s not something that might lead to people getting their Nintendo-accounts hacked or stolen or something like that.

          On a Steam Deck, the former concept doesn’t even exist. There’s no Steam Deck vulnerability that might lead to people running non-steam software on the Steam Deck, because it’s allowed usage.

          What I’m trying to say is that vulnerability is not negative for the user or indicative of bad platform security for the user.