[nobodysfool]

Because it's not just USB flash drives. Any device, a cell phone, a mouse, a webcam, anything that connects via usb, could essentially connect as a USB HID (human input device) and start issuing commands on the computer as if it were a human. But that's not the only thing it could do. You should read the article.

[kalleboo]

> Because it's not just USB flash drives

As for the actual flaw, yes that's true. But that's not what this article is talking about.

> You should read the article.

I did. It says:

> “People look at these things and see them as nothing more than storage devices,” says Caudill. “They don’t realize there’s a reprogrammable computer in their hands.”

It's clearly talking about the storage devices. If they were talking about the bus protocol they'd say "USB is nearly impossible to secure in its current form" instead of "USBs are nearly impossible to secure in their current form"

[eli]

I think you're being kinda pedantic. It's like people who write "ATM Machine." It's wrong, but it's not a big deal and the reader understands what they're saying.

[kalleboo]

> I think you're being kinda pedantic

Possibly. I wouldn't care if it was speech. I wouldn't comment if it was a regular newspaper. But WIRED writing like this?

[eli]

I used to really enjoy Wired in the pre Conde Nast days....

[linuxlizard]

I work on printers. We've done useful things with our USB to make them appear as mass storage (drivers stored on the printer--no download necessary). Once the driver installed, we switch over to a printer+scanner profile.

If we can pretend to be a mass storage, we could pretend to be a keyboard/mouse, too. It's a small matter of firwmare.

[CWuestefeld]

Yes, but there's still a useful distinction between USB devices which can be corrupted as described here, and USB interfaces, which would be used by a compromised device but aren't (afaik) themselves subject to being reprogrammed in this way.