It’s a breach of wiki review security. The impact is tiny. That edit should have never gone public. You shouldn’t have confirmed that edit. Should have been rejected. If not completely understood, please either ask and/or reject.
Also that edit is yet to be reverted.
Makes no sense to ask who made what edit as it can be seen in the wiki history. Link to wiki history: Permission error - Whonix
There every wiki version can be compared with every wiki version and it will show exactly what was changed (added text, removed text, edited text) as well as show which wiki account made the edit if any. Otherwise
Sometimes I make edits when I’m too lazy to sign in, that’s why I assumed that’s what happened here. Thought it was coming from a trusted source.There’s no excuse for this lapse though and it’s the first time I encounter this.
Keep or discard? Can this have security consequences?
Not a hard requirement, not enforced. As correctly quoted…
…“required for effective isolation of network VMs”. Hardware without IOMMU are still reported to run Qubes on the same website but these then don’t have “effective isolation of network VMs”.
Well, then if not having IOMMU, then don’t use Qubes because it then doesn’t have “effective isolation of network VMs”? No, that would also be wrong. No operating system would provide “effective isolation of network VMs” without IOMMU. So no Qubes specific disadvantage here either.
So yeah. Computer security. Complicated. Even a short and correct statement actually describing a feature/advantage (“with IOMMU you get effective isolation of network VMs”) with “required for effective isolation of network VMs” can be misunderstood in two negative ways which are false.
Please do as you see fit.
If the older one doesn’t come up anymore, it could even be completely removed.
If users using older systems still run into it, might be useful to keep the error message inside the text.