This would be one way to interpret it. Another way would be: "If the model is EOL, the potential attack surface gets lower, because you cannot buy it any longer and the amount of devices in use will reduce over time."

On a different note: Are you, in any way, affiliated with LG? You read to me as someone who is "unhappy" with the findings.

The attack-surface doesn't get lower, it just doesn't continue to increase UNLESS the same vulnerability is not carried over to other products.

The attack-surface only gets lower when the TV is no longer in use and is disposed. That doesn't happen at EOL, customers don't suddenly throw away their TVs after 2 years.

I'm happy with the findings and hope that it gains momentum, but unhappy with the dilution of the matter with speculation, assumptions and sensationalism, because it allows the vendor to wiggle out of it and wait for attention to wind down.

I would prefer a clear spotlight to be shined on #1 the ad-networks business model of TV-manufacturers and #2 the security of their (very powerful) products.

If the process results in regulation which also requires the TV manufacturer to offer root-access to the consumer to verify and control its operations, I would be overjoyed.

But this is unfortunately not a subject of the current narrative at all, it will actually result in the opposite (more effort to lock-down the OS to prevent future sensationalism reporting)